Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knopflerfish

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. Sandstein 18:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knopflerfish

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG, with a lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete apart from no sources at all here, a basic WP:BEFORE shows a few passing mentions in news and books, but I haven't found anything actually about it. Willing to be convinced ... - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - it's certainly not an unknown; there's the odd paper describing implementations [1], stackoverflow has ~30 questions about it [2], and generally a fair amount of talk on boards etc. But yeah, nothing specifically about it. I'm not too firm with software notability criteria; this may not qualify.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:43, 10 October 2016 (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.