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
@Chardon55 and DoubleGrazing: I added the section Draft:Quarto (software) § Further reading with a list of some in-depth independent reliable secondary sources on Quarto, which are needed to establish WP:NOTABILITY of the subject so that the article can be approved for creation. I am not sure whether this quantity of sources yet passes the threshold for notability. If not, I think the number of sources will continue to grow, and we should keep this draft article alive until the threshold is passed and the article can be created. Of course, the article content will have to be fleshed out more. Biogeographist (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Biogeographist: we normally want to see 3 or more sources that meet the WP:GNG standard. None of the ones cited in this draft do.
But sure, we can keep the draft "alive", as you put it; as long as there is a (human) edit every < 6 months, it will be retained more or less forever. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Thanks for the response. When you said that none of the sources cited in the article meet the GNG standard, were you counting the sources in Draft:Quarto (software) § Further reading? By my count, there are at least 3 sources in that section that meet the GNG guideline: two book chapters and an academic article devoted to the subject. As you know, WP:NOTABILITY is about what sources exist about the subject, not about what sources are cited inline. Biogeographist (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Biogeographist: no, I wasn't looking at the 'Further reading' section. I think most AfC reviewers don't. You're right, notability does depend on what sources exist, rather than what are cited (at least that's how it works in the AfD context; AfC is slightly different), but my advice would be to cite any and all sources that you're wanting to rely on to get a draft accepted. 'Further reading' list might look deceptively like 'General references', but it doesn't have quite the same standing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
