Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BEEBUG

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 keep. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 06:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BEEBUG

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

I can't find sources enough to showcase notability due that a company working on another topic bears that name too, Beebug. I have seen several sources on the Web, but in my opinion they are not enough to make any claim of notability about the topic. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 00:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm currently working on content related to this article and the associated company. Considering its age and defunct status, there are obviously few online sources relating to the subject. Watch this space! -- Trevj (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - in its present state, there is nothing resembling a plausible assertion of notability, far less actual evidence of notability. Userfy it and re-create it if and when you have accumulated such evidence. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the history will reveal that I didn't create the article. Your comment seems to imply that I did (unless I'm being paranoid). Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Trevj has worked on it since Orange Mike's comment. The first magazine for any of the early personal computers is an important part of computer history. Computer magazine's are not as big a deal today but back then they were one of the main ways for the computer culture to propagate. They were the blogs and online news of the day. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rewritten by Trevj. —Ruud 16:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per (almost, kind-of approaching borderline) WP:GNG. Deletion would be an obstruction to newbies (of which there exist some with an interest in this topic). Userfy/incubate if absolutely necessary but I think that would be not particularly helpful for editors wanting to improve the article. In the mean time, I'll continue to search for further sources. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've also dropped a note to one of the founders. -- Trevj (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 04:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A successful undeletion request has facilitated the reinstatement of (currently unsourced) content from a previous incarnation which has been history-merged. I've not yet been able to do a great deal of further searching for offline refs, although I have managed to find a couple more minor online ones. -- Trevj (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Trevj. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2012 (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.