Talk:Mg (text editor)

Notability and sources
Download-sites and existence in various packaging systems do not confer notability. To start, read the relevant guidelines, e.g., reliable sources, notability, third-party sources. So far, no useful sources have been given. TEDickey (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Inclusion into, and available from, peer-reviewed third-party packaging systems surely does qualify as a third-party source. The inclusion was not even at all sanctioned by the developers upstream (e.g., not by anyone who worked on this in the OpenBSD tree, from what I could tell, and mg is not even available for download directly from OpenBSD, where it is maintained) &mdash; it was an independent action by independent actors. MureninC (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines for notability do not pay any attention to that sort of thing. You might try reading the guidelines, to make the discussion focused. TEDickey (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources for widely distributed software that pre-dates the public Internet? Tricky. Are there reliable links to archived USENET newsgroups? Might be articles in old print magazines, but not(?) online. We are talking about an editor that was ported to many platforms, and has survived to the present. That is notable, as software goes. pbannister (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I came here to see what I could learn about mg. It's the kind of subject Wikipedia covers, and is expected to cover, and informs those like me who use Wikipedia for information. My only complaint is that the stub isn't long enough. I'd like to know a little more than ~ derived from EMACS ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)