Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BugNET


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

BugNET

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable software product. I have been unable to find any significant coverage, and the one source given in the article is a blog entry which doesn't mention this product. Haakon (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. This is a bug tracking system and customer support issue tracking system.  Back office software for tech businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I added the page. I see no justification for the delete nomination.  I am not the creator of BugNET. I added the BugNET page so links from comparison tables had some place to go and allow users to find the home page.  The linked home page describes BugNET appropriately and has links to Features, FAQ, Downloads, Forum.  A Google search will show this is a legitimate FOSS product.  I based the page on BugTracker.NET which is a different but similarly specified product. GregDude (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots more description has been added and source referenced by myself and others. GregDude (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The justifications cited above ( 1. a place for wikilinks to go, 2. aid to finding the software's web site, 3. the content of the software's web site, and 4. the software exists), are all irrelevant to the issue of notability. See the general notability criteria for guidance. Davnor (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom. Also reads a bit like an advertisement, which is perhaps inevitable as there's very little to say about it otherwise. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nomination. Davnor (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.