Administrators typically do not get involved unless an article is nominated for deletion. There’s tons of articles and administrators cannot personally review all of them, so we depend on the community to nominate articles for deletion if they are not in compliance with established policy. In a project this big, it’s common for articles to slip through the cracks if they aren’t noticed – this doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t also be deleted, it just means nobody who checks for such articles has found them yet.
It’s unfair, but it’s also reality. I refer back to the Other Stuff Exists essay.
This is a very strong statement made after a single interaction.
This is not an unreasonable definition of notability for software, and I believe that it could be met currently if there were reliable sources that made this claim. (See: Notability requires verifiable evidence. This is where DO and BB sources are likely to be seen as insufficient.)
I had a look at the article draft from January 2018 and, if there were reliable sources cited, it would likely have been mostly fine. (There’s a bit of POV but that’s easily cleaned up.)
I cannot use my administrator status to try to get the article accepted, especially as I am a contributor to restic as well. I would be required to disclose my participation here as it creates a conflict of interest, and recuse myself from application of administrator privileges. However, I can help you work on the article and give you some tips.
- The biggest thing we need is reliable secondary sources: news articles, tech journals, etc. to write about restic. The more the better. This will happen in time and I don’t doubt Wikipedia will have an article about restic eventually, we’re just new to the scene and it takes time for us to get noticed.
- Citing restic’s own documentation once or twice is probably okay, but excessive citations to restic’s documentation is perceived as spammy and and attempt to inflate importance. Restic’s documentation is a primary source and this should only be used to supplement the article with vital information that cannot be obtained from a secondary source. In particular, we don’t have to document every feature in the article.
I believe we are right on the cusp of inclusion, as the project is gaining traction. Last year was probably a bit early; this year is very feasible.
As an aside, I wrote an article some time ago about a software project I had started (and is now defunct). The article stood for a long time, until I learned more about Wikipedia policy and became an administrator. At that point I self-nominated the article for deletion for the sake of transparency, citing lack of notability of my own project. The unanimous consensus was to delete the article.
However, the article existed for years for one reason: I just went ahead and created it instead of going through the draft process. Creating the article as a draft was “the right way” to do it and resulted in more eyes on the article…
Here’s a few probably-reliable sources that mention restic:
This is likely sufficient to establish borderline notability, but a few more sources would be ideal.
I have restored the draft to a userspace-draft in my personal area. Feel free to edit here and improve the article. I will do so myself. Other editors should leave it alone while we work on it.