Deletion of Test (Unix)

Comment: There still aren't any provided sources to demonstrate notability.  |Saying that there "must be sources" and |inherited notability through UNIX don't really count
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:MUSTBESOURCES||WP:INHERIT)

Comment: Notability established as per  by multiple substantial sources in the "Further reading" section, see https://books.google.com/books?id=jO-iKwPRX0QC&pg=PA146, https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-bash-test/, http://linuxcommand.org/tlcl.php. The main reason why people vote "delete" here is because the article reads like a manual &mdash; but that should be solved by |stubification, not deletion of the article about a notable subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:STUBIFY)

Comment: A simple how-to guide on a trivial command line utility.  Assertions to the contrary seem to boil down to an |"it's notable" argument without any evidence.  My own searches do not show significant coverage in reliable sources, though it's difficult to find a search string that will remove the false positives, such as "test your UNIX script" or "a classroom test about this UNIX script".  I'm open to changing my vote if someone can provide reliable sources rather than simple assertions of notability.  Transwiki is also another quite valid result, especially if we did the same to the other trivial UNIX commands.  We could have a pretty nice UNIX how-to manual, which is likely within the scope of some Wikibook or something.  If someone wants to start a sourced "history" section in shell script, they could do that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSNOTABLE)