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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deterministic simulation testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This term seems to only be used by a fairly small group of companies, I'm not sure the methodology is currently notable enough to warrant an article. WP:BEFORE search turns up a fair amount of results, but they mostly seem to be primary sources or unreliable blogs. I think we need more reliable secondary sources covering this topic before it can be an article.

Considering the article in its current state, I don't think it provides much value as a stub. Every current reference is only indirectly relevant, none speaks directly to the topic or includes the phrase "deterministic simulation testing". There are 2 external links, and only one uses the phrase. StereoFolic (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StereoFolic (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There are many Internet forums that can explain this better, even on Reddit, it is explained well at the moment, not here. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Delete "vote" is from a blocked editor so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article fails to establish general notability as per WP:GNG and requires improvement in formatting. Furthermore, the content appears to be more suitable for a blog or website rather than a Wikipedia article, as it can be commonly found on such platforms. As such, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion seeDev ClassThanks for your contributions to the sum of all knowledge. Royalesignature (talk). 02:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  _{Sorry, that last sentence kinda gave off a bit of snark, at the very least to me.}

  This article would make sense to merge into a greater article, but I'm not sure which, so I'll hold my vote until then. Madeline1805 (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Until more companies and testing frameworks adopt this term to lock down "what is" and "what is not", this feels like marketing material put out by a few startups to sell the reliability of their product. --Voidvector (talk) 19:42, 18 December 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.