Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UDig

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UDig

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can find significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of UDig. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both google books and google scholar immediately turn up lots of coverage (e.g. here, here, here).— Moriwen (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per sources found and I have found some others. I question if the nominator performed a WP:BEFORE or is WP:HERE as a majority of their recent contributions are AfDs with the same verbatim reason. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per sources provided by @Moriwen. Svartner (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What new sources, User:Svartner?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @User:Liz: "(e.g. here, here, here)" There are consistent reviews, and are also some academic works based on the software [1] [2] [3]. Svartner (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple reliable, independent, and scholarly sources are available, ready to be included in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources discussed in this AfD show notability through WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. - Aoidh (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2024 (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.