This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In line with the general notability guidelines and the recommendation in Wikipedia:Multiple_sources that "it seems that challenges to notability are successfully rebuffed when there are three good in-depth references in reliable sources that are independent of each other" I have four sources that are mainly about llama.cpp that explain what the software is and how to use it. Two sources are from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources and one is from an academic journal (with one of the keywords listed in that paper being "llama.cpp"). If anyone disagrees with the notability of this software please describe why you think the sources listed do not show notability. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply