Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unittest

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 Merge to List of unit testing frameworks. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unittest

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I just completed merging PyUnit into here, per a six month old suggestion, but it really shouldn't exist at all. As a piece of software, it has no more intrinsic significance than any of the other modules in the Python standard library. The original XUnit code is notable because it introduced some new ideas about testing, but this is just a straight-forwared translation of XUnit into another language. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the subject of significant and nontrivial coverage in multiple reliably published books [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] it passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are published books, but they're all "how to use Python" manuals. As such, they're pretty much obligated to go down the list of modules included in the standard library and write something about each one. Such routine and perfunctory coverage does not establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~XUnit~~List of unit testing frameworks. Sure, there may be books giving tutorials on how to use the module, but I don't see it receiving any mainstream media coverage. Virtually nothing can be written on this topic beyond how to use it, and per NOTHOWTO, even that would be out of place here. APerson (talk!) 01:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC) (changed merge target APerson (talk!) 21:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Good idea, unless merging this stub to a new section on a page about Python is better. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of unit testing frameworks except it's already done. ― Padenton|✉ 08:27, 4 May 2015 (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.