There wasn’t a lot of good source material to use a couple months ago. I’m unsure if that has changed, but it might’ve. It’s a prerequisite for writing a good wikipedia article, at any rate, as opposed to a shitty one.
You’re not allowed to write your own telling of the story on there, you have to copy other people’s and cite them. So a lot of other people need to have written on it, from a position of being a reliable source, before a quality wikipedia article can be written.
Though a small, mediocre article can be better than no article, if you’re giving someone a good framework to improve on later, as more sources develop.
And also bear in mind that if someone writes a crappy enough kbin article now and it gets deleted, that's going to make it harder to get a kbin article started again in the future. I know that's not how it's supposed to work in principle but unfortunately it's how it works in practice.
Pleroma still doesn't have a wikipedia article because of this, despite being one of the oldest AP-enabled fediverse services. It's been deleted twice because some moderator didn't like the quality or number of sources.
Wikipedia doesn’t like articles that are basically ads. Articles should be written from an unbiased standpoint using independent sources. If an article has been removed because it’s basically self promotion, then mods will be more careful about reopening it again.
en.wikipedia.org
Gorące