Deletion of FieldTrip

Comment: weakly.  The text seems neutral and factual, even if jargony; that's a big plus.  It seems to be a small, open source academic project about important sounding stuff.  Yes, people may want to know about this a |hundred years from now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Even though I was the article's original PRODder, I am going to !vote neutral. The reason for this is that the article describing this software has already been cited over 100 times (Web of Science; over 200 times in the less precise Google Scholar), despite having been published very recently (2011). If the article creators could provide us with an independent (|reliable) source discussing or reviewing this toolbox, I would change for a "keep
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Not all the arguments given above by Horschig are pertinent (amount of funding, for example, or the workshops being given) and I do think that, in fact, this is very close (probably just below) our notability bar. However, as Looie496 says, the article is sourced and it is non-promotional. And given the huge amount of citations to their article after just 2 years, I don't think we need a |crystal ball to see that this will be notable shortly
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)