Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yggdrasil (network)

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yggdrasil (network)

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Of the linked sources, several are not independent coverage, while others do not mention it at all. — Moriwen (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of the linked sources, several are not independent coverage: then e.g. tag it as Stub or Expert Needed (Category:Computer_networking_articles_needing_expert_attention for example). It was the very first version. I was looking for an article about that project and only found one in the ru wikipedia. Then I spent my weekend writing an initial English version of it...

I still don't see how alternatives to deletion have been considered so far tbh.

while others do not mention it at all: Do you mean the sources for references to information from standards or related topics that I compared it with? Ofc. Yggdrasil won't be mentioned in a standard for something else that I just happened to compare it with for explaining what it is. Agowa (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines; not enough GNG passable sources (RSes) or SIGCOV. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Found this one decent source that can be a step towards passing GNG, but not enough on its own. popodameron ⁠talk 21:00, 4 March 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.