This page is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence articles
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion
My article about Llama.cpp, a software library (not affiliated), was declined 22 days ago because the "submission is about a topic not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines." I since then added three separate articles that are about my topic in line with the general notability guidelines and the recommendation in Wikipedia:Multiple_sources that "it seems that challenges to notability are successfully rebuffed when there are three good in-depth references in reliable sources that are independent of each other." The three sources are from theregister, arstechnica and tomshardware (not including other primary sources). Would someone be able to take a look at the revised version? I would like to know if there is anything wrong with it this time because it seems the re-review process is long. Also, what is the general standard then for software? News sites don't generally cover them. For example the sources for Krita are almost all first hand sources from Krita.org and KDE as well as links to it's store page on eg. Google Play. It doesn't seem common for reliable news sites to explain what software products are and do, much less a software library. How do you recommend I proceed with this article? To me, this software is very "obviously" notable because it has 55,000 stars on GitHub and probably millions of users. But I don't know how to prove that within Wikipedia's general guidelines. Also what do you think of the other two sources? Are they good enough? 65.242.132.98 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
