Tei wrote:
It will be a good idea to pass the memo to the guys
that design the
notability rules.
http://ioquake3.org/2009/02/20/ioquake3-entry-deleted-from-wikipedia/
Since most (all?) opensource proyects are webonly, and don't get in
the press, are on some "obscure" area of the web where something can
be wildly popular for these in-the-know, and invisible for these that
edit and delete articles.
I mean, I can write a bot to nominate *all* opensource projects
articles on wikipedia for speedy deletion, and few ones (maybe 6) will
survive that.
*Many* opensource projects are relevant, to cite a few: Apache, PHP,
Python, Perl, Ruby, Postgresql, subversion, mercurial, git, bazaar...
Those are more than 6... :)
They are technologies widely known, there are books written about them...
As opposed, this is the first time I hear about ioquake3. It may be
relevant, it may be not.
Being in the web and free is not enough for warranting notability.
Even though script kiddies making its Linux ditro don't like it :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ioquake3
<<<<<<
Keep no matter how loud people and guidlines scream for reliable
sources, many, many people use it and work on it and that makes it
notable. If the press is not able to reliably represent this reality
it's not a fault of the project and reality is a higher standard than
reliable press. What do you need press for an Open Source project?
Just looking at the SVN log proves more than any article could ever
do. -- ioquake3 maintainer for the FreeBSD project
If they are relevant, why bother if wikipedia doesn't acknowledge that?
Suppose wikipedia didn't have an article about FreeBSD, would that make
it a worse OS?