Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editorial Viability Assessment

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial Viability Assessment

A software testing methodology. Original research written up in some horribly turgid prose. -- RHaworth 12:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• The article's author, Rmstein (talk · contribs), tells us that "That curriculum does not exist previously describing it should not interfere with discussion about effectiveness." and "I have not encountered any technical discussion of this abstraction in the literature. [...] I've applied this methodology in large and small factories to stabilize releases.". Wikipedia is not the place to publish the first ever documentation of one's own, never-before-documented, software development methodology. Wikipedia is not a publisher of primary research. The place for that is one of the many computer science journals that exist. Delete. Uncle G 14:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  I incorporated two references that details the relevance of this material and establish providence -- an extension and refinement of RUP. The viability assessment is a derivative RUP application. The material relates certain facts about modern software factory practice, documenting a means to suppress defect escape. Rmstein 21:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I can find no other specific references to this methodology, and the author admits that it is a self-created 'derivative'. It's simple, unverifiable, OR. I can't quite seem to see any claim to the contrary. Kuru ^talk 00:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Rmstein. ;-) Vectro 16:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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.