[woodruffw]

Notability is a qualified state on Wikipedia, as both TFA and Wikipedia itself document.

One of the qualifications is having third-party sources document the subject, where those third-party sources are themselves notable and reputable (in the subject area). A company’s statement that it uses a programming language might be factual, but that doesn’t necessarily make it notable.

(To be clear: I was only vaguely aware of Odin, and I have no idea who/what JangaFX. But that isn’t dispositive.)

[FullGarden_S]

To be clear, I was not talking about Odin specifically. This is about notability in general.

>where those third-party sources are themselves notable and reputable (in the subject area)

this is where the bias kicks in. It would be great if Wikipedia's notability goes "All youtube sources are not reliable" but instead its always phrased like "Some Youtube sources are not reliable" and what qualifies as this "some" is usually decided by the personal bias of the admins.

[woodruffw]

> It would be great if Wikipedia's notability goes "All youtube sources are not reliable" but instead its always phrased like "Some Youtube sources are not reliable" and what qualifies as this "some" is usually decided by the personal bias of the admins.

You can read the policy yourself[1]. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me at all.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links

[FullGarden_S]

It does not seem unreasonable to me as well and I do not recall stating that being the case.

I only mentioned the YouTube scenario, but that's pretty much the case for almost everything. I'll repeat it again: it all boils down to the personal bias of the admins, and you seem to agree with that as well.

[woodruffw]

I don’t agree, because no evidence of bias has been advanced. They might be biased, but the plain reading of the situation of that (1) Odin is not notable under GNG, (2) JangaFX might be notable, but notability isn’t transitive.