I'm curious where you draw the line? Is 9,999 github stars (or any other metric) too few, but then one more magically makes it worthy of inclusion? Or maybe it should be done by degrees: at 1,000 stars, maybe a sentence or two; a paragraph at 5,000, several sections at 10,000, and so on?

The problem, of course, is that such measures are arbitrary and probably gameable. Not that the current criteria aren't, of course, but it's the best we've got.

Wikipedia doesn't care about Github stars, forks or discord members, but "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

As far as I'm aware, there are no articles in the press about Odin, no academic papers, no non-self-published books, no conference talks, not anything that rises to the standard required by Wikipedia for inclusion of a topic.

Apologies for not catching this in my last reply.

> I know of many undisputed topics on Wikipedia which have less prevalence.

Then by all means, flag them for deletion. Although I would understand if you don't want to make that effort (I mean this genuinely, not as a rebuke).