Tonight I tried to create a Wikipedia page for Lemmy to try and raise awareness, but it was quickly rejected for the following reason:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
I guess we'll have to start getting journalists to write about it?
Are these articles useful as reference ?
They rarely accept social medias like reddit as sources. They will accept twitter as a source if it's relevant,
example: trump toots: "I like vegans". Wikipedia: "trump reported that he likes vegans"[source here]
Primary sources are acceptable in limited circumstances, namely as a citation for when someone said something (as opposed to as a statement of fact or notability). There are some reddit AMAs being cited on Wikipedia, e.g. Patrick Stewart's AMA is cited here as saying he likes Yorkshire Tea
For example, the lemmy AMA could be cited as "According to the lemmy developers, the goals of lemmy are X, Y, and Z"
However, primary sources on their own do not establish notability, which is the issue at hand here.