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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I don't know enough about the sources to assess the quality of the journal sources and whether the nominator would say they are predatory, but there appears to be sufficient scholarly coverage of this subject. However, my lack of knowledge prevents me from !voting.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
00:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I couldn't find anything significant. The one ref I was talking about is
this, which is inactive (it's also a low-quality journal so fails RS). --
WikiLinuz (
talk)
02:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of unit testing frameworks: The framework is notable enough to be frequently mentioned in online and literary sources from the early-mid 2000s (e.g.,
[2],
[3]), but not in any depth, and certainly not with any greater coverage than its contemporaries. It should be redirected to preserve the edit history, regardless, and sources used to back up its entry at the list article, where a short description would be plenty considering the lack of detailed coverage.
Reconrabbit16:12, 23 June 2024 (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.
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I don't know enough about the sources to assess the quality of the journal sources and whether the nominator would say they are predatory, but there appears to be sufficient scholarly coverage of this subject. However, my lack of knowledge prevents me from !voting.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
00:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I couldn't find anything significant. The one ref I was talking about is
this, which is inactive (it's also a low-quality journal so fails RS). --
WikiLinuz (
talk)
02:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of unit testing frameworks: The framework is notable enough to be frequently mentioned in online and literary sources from the early-mid 2000s (e.g.,
[2],
[3]), but not in any depth, and certainly not with any greater coverage than its contemporaries. It should be redirected to preserve the edit history, regardless, and sources used to back up its entry at the list article, where a short description would be plenty considering the lack of detailed coverage.
Reconrabbit16:12, 23 June 2024 (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.