Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uno (software)

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uno (software)[edit]

[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)

No significant coverage in reliable sources, all coverage appears to be in Medium posts. Searching for sources was difficult because there's a lot of other things called either "Uno" or "Uno Platform", including an Arduino platform. Does not meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are two paragraphs of coverage in [1] but that is not likely to be enough (niche pub and hardly in-depth). Ping if more in-depth and reliable reviews are found and I can reconsider this vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that there are more than two paragraphs of coverage in the above mentioned source. Please check more closely. There are two paragraphs in another cited source [2]. Obviously (and very unfortunately), nobody have taken some time to perform a more extensive search. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those sources include fairly significant coverage of the subject. However, I don't see any indication that those are reliable sources, as they're posts on Medium. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you have mentioned above, search for sources is a bit difficult because of the unfortunate choice of the name that is used for may other things. I would wish an article like this could attract enough editors to push it to a higher level (regarding references as well as content), but I have a feeling this is becoming increasingly more difficult for articles related to software and technology in general. I would also remark that in this area, what is not consumer faced is hard to get broad coverage in traditional media, and coverage in community portals and blogs should be considered as well. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 09:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NSOFT; significant RS coverage not found. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable as cross-platform GUI framework for .NET (similar role as AWT in Java world, but .NET took rather different paths in GUI development that Java). Secondary sources exist, search is a bit difficult due to framework's name that interferes with many other things. As many other articles related to software development, this one also suffers for lack of community involvement and critical mass of editors knowledgeable in the subject. Considering also this section of WP:NSOFT and the nature of the subject (not a popular topic; dynamic and evolving field), I think there is a strong case for trying to improve the coverage of related topics rather than to impoverish it. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

kEEP and give time! The page need a change to grow and expanse before you try to kill itﷴﷺﷴﷺﷴﷺ (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2019 (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.