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. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation-Based Priority Assessment

[edit]

NN business term (0 Google hits apart from WP and scrapers), neologism. roux 16:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It makes 0 sense, and the one link makes -5 sense. It's so unclear and badly written it can't even be categorized! Even now, I only have a very faint idea of what it's trying to say. TopGearFreak ^Talk 17:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do stakeholders have to do with software? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, minor technique within SDLC. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Priority assessment of software process requirements from multiple perspective (already cited) is a WP:RS (Journal of Systems and Software), and another WP:RS by completely different authors, A methodology of determining aggregated importance of engineering characteristics in QF (in Computers & Industrial Engineering), cites the first paper. Both use the term "Correlation-Based Priority Assessment". That's quite enough to establish notability. Re Mgm's "What do stakeholders have to do with software?" see Stakeholder analysis or do some Googling. IMO this Afd is WP:SNOW. --Philcha (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a request for clarification:

Priority assessment of software process requirements from multiple perspective introduces Correlation-Based Priority Assessment as a method of dealing with the fact that differnet stakeholders have different requirments for the same proposed product, and may express them in different language.
A methodology of determining aggregated importance of engineering characteristics in QF, by a different authors from different institutions, proposes another method of prioritising requirements, and starts with a review of recent work that says, "Correlation-Based Priority Assessment (CBPA) framework was recently developed by Liu et al. (2006) which prioritizes software process requirements gathered from multiple stakeholders by incorporating inter-perspective relationships of requirements." In other words it recognises the notability of the problem ("requirements gathered from multiple stakeholders") and of the solution presented in Correlation-Based Priority Assessment.

BTW Xiaoqing Liu, lead author of the CBPA paper, appears to be one of the heavyweights in QFD, see Google Scholar for "QFD Liu Xiaoqing". E.g. Business-oriented software process improvement based on CMM using QFD is very similar to CBPA. --Philcha (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--and I really don't say that often. I am convinced, after some googling, that the concept exists and that it is real and meaningful (if incomprehensible to me). The article, of course, is really very poorly written, by someone who knows exactly what he is talking about and cannot convey that to an outside audience--and has not looked at or edited enough WP articles to know what such an article needs to look like. Sorry Ivo, maar ik zeg het zoals het is--zo doen we dat in Amsterdam! Still, AfD is about notability, and this is notable. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Article based on a single recent academic paper (primary source in wikispeak) that has one citation!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!! Promotional in nature. Show me that the concept/method is discussed in a secondary source (a book on software engineering), or at least covered in more than one sentence in a review paper, and I'll change my mind. Don't you love it when wikiexperts say keep reasoning "no idea what this is about, but it sounds impressive"?! You should also know that in computer science journal papers are generally less important than conference papers. Pcap ping 09:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your nicely sarcastic summary of my somewhat off-hand remark. I think that even in a computing-related discussion we could be well-mannered. As for 'promotional,' you are a long ways away from proving that the article author has anything to do with the research in question. But I'll bow down to your impressive array of exclamation points--how could I argue against such rhetorical force? Drmies (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pcap sums up my stand on the article. It is clearly a protologism that has been used in two publications (in which one cites the other) and there is a PhD thesis that once again cites the same publication. Definitely not-notable enough. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:39, 27 November 2008 (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.