Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unit test framework


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Unit test framework

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Make this a redirect to unit test (rather than deleting). Rationale: Essay/howto-style article, unreferenced, thematic duplicate of unit test (anything encyclopedic that could be added to this article should rather be added to unit test). Lea (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Although the article as it stands is poor, this seems a reasonable topic for an article. Unit test frameworks are really as much about regression testing as unit testing, so redirecting to unit test would probably not be appropriate. Some of the information on this topic is already here in articles such xUnit and Test-driven development. I would like to see a better article here rather than this just changed to a redirect.--Michig (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: You're probably right that there could be something encyclopedic about unit test frameworks (general history, perhaps different approaches, etc.), but I can't see enough material off the top of my head to give it a try.  The article would need a complete re-write in any case, so until someone's willing to do that, we may as well put a redirect.  (If it gets redirected, we should probably place a note on Talk:unit testing that something could be written there.) -- Lea (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The nominator's problems with the current text seem spot-on.  We do not need articles with elaborate quotations in source code. Moreover, I would question whether we need quite so much granularity about the minutiae of software development or the problems of supervising software developers.  That sort of thing seems to attract spam; be poorly written; full of vaguely abstract talk of "processes" and "systems".  My general impression is that it constitutes a sort of tech-management-cruft.  Notability is usually not an issue, since there probably is an extensive literature for any such subject you might name; readability, general interest, and sorting out legitimate topics from stealth spam are. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (Semi-off-topic comment: Unit testing comes from agile development, which tends to be rather non-crufty. Agree with your comment that I've seen a lot of tech-management-cruft, but I'm not competent enough on big-process management to propose any (new) notability guidelines there, or even have an idea where to draw the line.) -- Lea (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Essay/howto, adds nothing encyclopedic to our existing article on unit tests. I was hoping for an article-length expansion of unit test and would support the existence of such an article, but the present article doesn't help lead to that outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * redirect Unit testing for now. I agree with others that there is scope for a real article on the subject, but this is not a good place to start from. JUnit A Cook's Tour is a very nice article on the design of the junit framework. --Salix alba (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and do not redirect. Unit test frameworks are not synonymous to nor a subset or example of unit test.  Redirect would only serve to confuse dear reader.  Let them google it and find actual information pertinent to the subject, not link some other article we happen to have that shares some of the page name words.  Notability is not the concern here, it is the tone, style, and approach of this OR-POV/how-to.  This article will be nothing once the inapproppriate stuff is removed, so delete without predudice against creation of a new article on the subject. JERRY talk contribs 04:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about redirecting to Unit_test though (make an anchor there perhaps)? -- Lea (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be somewhat like redirecting Screwdriver to Brakes. I say we should not make such a redirect. JERRY talk contribs 19:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. In the interests of closing this debate, let's delete it - there's nothing useful there and we can always create a better article later. Nobody seems to want to keep it, so do we really need more time spent on discussing this?--Michig (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2008 (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.