@dmbaturin @lain I don't think notability is a problem, especially in Pleroma's case. Restating the comment given, It's more the requirement for "reliable sources", which just means big established names. A news story could be totally baseless and speculative but will get a reference from a Wikipedia article because it's established.
A wise man once put it more simply: "Wikipedia has become just a repository for the mainstream media." and "There are newsworthy events on the Internet at would not make it on Wikipedia [for this reason]"
I now always click on the Talk and History links of every page which has reference in any way to a person. Just the reality of the times.
@torresjrjr @lain "Mentioned in a specific kind of a reliable source" is a part of the notability criteria.
Curiously, that very page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(software) says that criteria should be relaxed for free and open source software.
@dmbaturin @lain Interesting, I might counter the page rejection with that citing, thanks.
Also, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger wrote about some of it's problems: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ (offline right now for some reason).
@torresjrjr @lain I'm a former Wikipedian and still a believer in its ideas, but their notability criteria for software "haven't aged well" to say the least.
By now they make it nearly impossible to write about any new software, unless it has a budget to get mentioned in some media established before the Internet.