Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BUGSYS

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BUGSYS

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

Fails the notability criteria. Of the sources, FOLDOC is a tertiary source, while the CACM paper has only 16 citations on GScholar. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A 1966 paper with only 14 citations in GS is probably quite obscure, even though GS might not index all citations from that era. The Foldoc coverage is a one-liner [1], well below WP:GNG requirements. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2014 (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.