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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ht-//dig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

long-term stub for an abandoned project. no established notability, doesn't look like there's any chance this will ever be expanded even to the point of justifying itself. Chris Cunningham 07:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The project may be abandoned but this was one of the first website search engines. I remember using this back in the mid-nineties. This is like deleting an article about the Model A because no one makes it anymore. I *know* it can be expanded and improved. Spryde 12:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It will be difficult seeing as there are still a ton of sites still using it. It was first developed at San Diego State University back in 1995. Andrew Scherpbier was the original author. It is sad that I can't find this information in what would pass as a reliable source since this software was so prominent (and still is by a simple google search). I can add the sources I have found and see if that is acceptable to all? Spryde 12:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article by adding references to its notability is by far the best way of avoiding deletion, so go for it. Chris Cunningham 13:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article referenced using whatever reliable sources I could find in Google Book search + the htdig website. Doing a book search finds it mentioned in quite a few books related to Unix and Linux. It also has some indirect mentions by books that reference sites that use it. Spryde 16:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete , I can't seem to find any reliable sources regarding this site but there's a slight possibility I've overlooked something. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. The added sources help modestly. I agree with the 'model A' analogy above. It's hard to find fresh refs for something out of use, but that doesn't make it automatically NN. The article is short, maybe some more history can be 'dug' up? (Pun intended). Keeper | 76 17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable enough — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, can't see how this meets WP:SOFTWARE. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Uh, you may want to check what policy page you are linking to there :) Spryde 03:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And as the last ditch effort, I added a Linux Magazine review of ht://Dig. I am working on finding more book cites for this. Spryde 04:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a notable bit of internet/web history. 132.205.44.5 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable topic. IP198 20:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable topic, As per Wikipedia:Notability, Spryde has found reliable secondary sources about ht://dig. One could argue as to whether they are significant, but I think they are more than trivial.

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.