The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete and redirect. Avi (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Functional Decomposition Methodology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A testing process almost certainly described by its creator. Is it notable? Sgroupace (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article was a contested prod. Here was my justification for seconding the prod: "Personal essay, not verifiable; Google search on article title did not turn up this author, searching on the author and this subject matter only turned up this page." KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Stub. The present article must go: it is original research and advertisement, input by Srikkanthqa (talk · contribs) to describe something "originally designed by Srikkanth Danthala, a QA Test Specialist from SCL Technology Solutions". The only source cited is the web-site of his employer which doesn't, as far as I can see, say anything about this. However a Google search suggests that the term is in widespread enough use to justify a (non-proprietary) article - see, e.g., the quote "The functional decomposition methodology dominated the software development scene in the 1970s and 1980s" from a 1996 paper. I suggest that someone better qualified than me should replace the article with a stub on the lines of "The functional decomposition methodology was a software testing methodology widely used in the 1970s and 1980s", and see what develops from there. JohnCD (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is original research. As for JohnCD's finding for the use of the term, it is not related to testing as described in teh current article. One might argue that a redirect to Decomposition (computer science) may be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Decomposition (computer science).

• Keep Stub per JohnCD above and multiple sources below. The OR can (and should) be removed (which is not the purview of AfD), but the topic (that is, the methodology of functional decomposition, not this particular framework) is notable and thus the article should not be deleted outright; a stub is certainly an acceptable resolution. – 74  00:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC) (edited for clarity – 74  18:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment - Can yu explain how this testing methodology is notable? -- Whpq (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain how the term is notable: take your pick. I suppose actual content could be merged with functional decomposition (also not the purview of AfD), but I'm perfectly fine with a stub (though the article name should be de-capsed). – 74  04:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I am not disputing that the term exists. But those references don't describe what is in this article. This article is about a specific testing methodology, as opposed to an overall development methodology. If you can point out references about the testing methodology, I will happily change my opinion. Until then, I have re=-evaluated that a redirect may bwe more appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the current OR and AD content should be removed (perhaps my statement above did not make that clear? *edited*). I just think it would be best to leave a stub article that editors (including anons) could expand with the presented sources. Since there is little of value in the current article, I would support deletion of Functional Decomposition Methodology and creation of Functional decomposition methodology as a stub. (As far as redirects go, Functional decomposition would seem to be a better target than Decomposition (computer science).) – 74  18:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: I'm not adverse to a redirect to Functional decomposition. A good case could probably made for either as a redirect target. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the author has corrected the reference (see his post on the article talk page),and it is now apparent that the article is a copyvio from here. No doubt he could arrange a GFDL release, but the article is still OR; I think the best solution is to speedy-delete it as copyvio and make a new redirect from Functional decomposition methodology (proper capitalisation) to Functional decomposition, but I'm not sure whether that would be proper in mid-AfD, so I have posted at AN/I for advice. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A copyvio supercedes any other issues and is grounds for a speedy deletion. In other articles under AFD where a copyvio has been found, I've noted this in the AFD discussion with a recommendation to speedy delete pointing out the source from which the copying took place, and tagged the article for speedy deletion. It's never been a problem before in my experience. But as you have posted an AN/I, I'll leave it alone and let an administrator step in and take appropriate action. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Nuke it. – 74  16:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.