Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software Test Techniques

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. If anyone wants this content for a transwiki, I will make it available. W.marsh 19:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Software Test Techniques

Software Test Techniques (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Long, with sources, but seems to violate Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. NawlinWiki 19:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per failure of WP:NOT#IINFO criteria 4; in the first paragraph, "and explains when they may be used". Even without that part, it still seems to close to a how-to for my tastes. Kyra_~(talk) 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This looks like original research and how-to material to me. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Thank you all for your comments. Yes, I accept that it looks like a "how to". However, it is difficult (for me at least) to write an article on this subject without including some "how to" information. That is, to explain this subject it is necessary to describe a situation in which it is used, which inevitably tells someone how to implement the technique. However, the "how to" part is not detailed. Your suggestions are welcome. For example, would it be sufficient (or even a step in the right direction) to change the sub-titles to, "Description", "Example" and "Where It Is Used"?

As to it being original research, no it is not. These are standard test techniques. This is my profession and my expertise. Other Software Testers will validate this. Robinson weijman 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also not sure about how consistently the "how to" rule is applied. This makes it hard for me to stick to. E.g. see Cups and balls (and others from List of magic tricks). Robinson weijman 10:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and transwiki to Wikibooks. This is a great start to a Wikibook. —siroχo 11:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I appreciate the comment. That's the first positive feedback I've had from Wikipedia! Robinson weijman 11:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I've been giving this a lot of thought and researched some more (on Wikipedia). So I'm offering to rewrite the article to make it more encyclopedic and less (or not at all) "how to". How does that sound? Robinson weijman 07:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would support this endeavor, and suggest that whoever ends up closing this debate postpone deletion to give a chance at rewriting. —siroχo 08:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks for that support. I've also noticed that, after rewriting, it should be merged with this article: Software test techniques! Robinson weijman 10:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - See also the discussion page: Talk:Software_Test_Techniques. Robinson weijman 14:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I've now made a number of minor edits which I believe re-qualifies this article for Wikipedia. Would you (reviewers) please recheck this? The "how to factor" is diminished if not removed entirely. Thanks. Robinson weijman 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It's gone pretty quiet on this page. Can we remove the deletion tag please? I've had no negative comments since the rewrite, and one very positive one here: Talk:Software_Test_Techniques. Thanks. Robinson weijman 11:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this article but there is some good content which could be merged into existing articles such as White box testing and Black box testing, with which this article already overlaps to some extent. I believe this would put the information into a better-defined context and avoid the potential duplication that would result from adding more contextual information to this article.--Michig 12:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks for that feedback. I've update this article to include links to White box testing and Black box testing. However, both are fairly short articles and do not cover the same material. This is specific techniques, those articles merely address the two classifications of test techniques. Question - Is there any other test specialist prepared to comment on the validity of this article before it is (possibly) deleted? Robinson weijman 15:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

They are fairly short articles, but a 'Techniques' section in each could hold most of the information in this article.--Michig 15:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Then why delete this one? Why not incorporate those articles in this one, or leave all three as they are? By the way, if I do not comment for a few days, it is because I will be away. Will recheck this page within a week. Till then. Robinson weijman 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Because Black box testing techniques is logically a subsection of Black Box Testing, and not v.v. It also makes sense to have articles with titles that reflect terms that people are likely to search for. The whole field of software testing includes techniques from unit testing of modules of code using white and black box techniques right up to testing usability, security and accessibility, which is a very broad spectrum of different topics, and it seems to me that the best structure is to have Software testing as the most general article, with articles for the more-specific areas beneath this, then detail about specific testing techniques applicable to those areas beneath these. If we attempted to describe all software testing techniques in a single article, which would mean adding an awful lot more techniques to the list in this article, we would undoubtedly end up splitting it anyway because it would get too large. --Michig 17:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment This article contains very useful definitions of various testing techniques which are not described elsewhere on the Wikipedia, the information should be retained. Suggest it is just a matter of where to place this information. What if some of these techniques are applicable to both white and black-box testing? JPFitzmaurice 10:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would suggest that individual techniques have their own articles (as several already do), and if they apply to more than one area of testing they can be linked from multiple articles as required.--Michig 10:53, 26 January 2007 (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.