This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcomputers,computing, andinformation technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
I think the fact that they don't have yet their own page should not be a reason to discard it here. Sourcehut would have more features that many of the others according to the table. Also several of them have ceased its activity. I don't see why it is considered reasonable to keep a source-code-hosting facility that is not working since already 3 years, but don't include other that is active and have most of the features nowadays required by these source-code-hosting.AyubuZimbale (talk)17:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Has an article of its own' is the list inclusion criteria for this comparison, and we ought to keep following it. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a catalog or a link directory, so anything that was notable enough to have an article can remain listed for historical purposes, even if the facility is no longer active.
Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a catalog, we write about and list things of historical importance, even if they are not currently active. We still have an article onIsaac Newton even though he hasn't written any new scientific papers for while.MrOllie (talk)17:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speak about Isaac Newton here is a non-sense comparison. You could explain in other terms. As the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it makes sense to include those that actually are relevant. There are cases relevant/notable without a page in wikipedia, and others non-notable with a page in wikipedia and therefore in these tables:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEUL, there is no objective reason to consider that OSDN or OW2 are more notable that Sourcehut except for the fact that someone did a page in wikipedia. It is fine, it is the protocol, but explain it as a protocol.AyubuZimbale (talk)18:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you know of anything that has a page that you believe is non-notable, you are welcome to submit it to the article deletion process found atWP:AFD. We should still list historically relevant information on Wikipedia, though.MrOllie (talk)18:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help and your patience. Apologies that I did not know about the notable/non-notable before. I would not mark anything in this page as non-notable as they are source-coding hosting that provide/provided a service. However many of them are objectively less relevant that other not included. If I have time I will try to create pages in Wikipedia for them.AyubuZimbale (talk)18:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genuinely asking, lacking experience: Where do I find the inclusion criteria for this list, and lists more generally? I did see the "Article Policies", but this seems to be another concern? Thanks.Lorenz Leutgeb (talk)09:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I used to usegitolite to host some corporate git project. I am happy to see that people still use it to host source code. It is even one of the current Debian packages, so Debian have evaluated it as meaningful to someone. But does it count as a facility if gitolite is hosted on another hosting facility, rather than self-hosting?alexx (talk)14:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
