Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software archaeology

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 Speedy Keep (non-admin closure) --Cybercobra (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Software archaeology[edit]

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

Searching for books and papers that use this term show that it is most often used in the context of software applications being applied to archaeological data rather than the archaeology of software. I find no significant sources for the latter usage and such a minor technical phrase does not justify an encyclopaedia article (possibly a note in the Wiktionary definition or a merge to reverse engineering). Raising for discussion as not that obvious for a speedy or prod. Fæ (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as WP:CB. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Neutral. I acknowledge the article has been improved - but I no longer feel qualified to comment. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There are many, many reliable literature references on this, including from a professional workshop held by the Association for Computing Machinery. ~~WP:BEFORE should have spotted these.~~ I have added some references to the article. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The alternate spellings may be responsible for not finding the relevant literature on Google searching. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage of this proves it an actual term. [1] Dream Focus 09:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - happy to see a speedy keep on the basis of the recent citations added. Fæ (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2010 (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.