`:, I understand you are only inquiring as to whether to take the issue to a still larger forum, but I think it would be helpful to use alternative wording to ``escalate``; involved parties ought to be working to bridge the gap in perspectives between them and come to consensus and that sort of language implies antagonism and a quarrel.    :, you are correct that the RfC process is not a straight up-and-down vote, but the involved editors do form a consensus on how policy, which represents broader community consensus is applied, so you can't just declare your position the non-subjective one and dismiss the majority position as mere ``personal opinion``.  And frankly the stridency of your claim to having the superior argument is only continuing to highlight just how inconsistent your perspective is with community consensus on most all of the above points of conflict; we simply do not allow anywhere near the level of archiving of documentation on the behalf of other projects such as you want to utilize this space for.  We strive for encyclopedic tone here, and part of that is summary style, which requires us to include only content reaching a certain notability and only consistent with it's weight in sources.  Which brings us the the larger issue; we can't even begin to appropriately weight content from our WP:Reliable sources because we have none here.  Frankly this article is a candidate for AfD as stands, as it doesn't have sourcing sufficient to pass WP:GNG, let alone the more specific standards for notability with regard to software.    :More than dozen central policies and guidelines have been cited to you above, none of which you have responded to substantively, and yet you are glib enough to brand your opposition (who are in the majority and consist of vastly more experienced editors with a much lower personal stake in the content than seems to be the case for yourself) as the ones who are allowing their personal feelings take precedence over policy.  It's often perfectly useful to combine your love and advocacy for another project with Wikipedia editing, providing you are still acting as a Wikipedia first and foremost when contributing here.  But the level of documentation and promotion you want to add to the present article serves the interest of the software's project at the cost of ignoring the content standards of this project.   Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to host detailed documentation or manuals of usage; we present well-rounded information on encyclopedic topics with established verifiability and notability.  None of those standards are being served by keeping an ``article`` that looks like it is straight out of a support page, and not supported by a single source that is non-primary and consistent with Wikipedia's standards on sourcing.  Again, I stress to you your luck, given your degree of devotion to this content, that different parties didn't arrive here who would simply decide to remove this article in it's entirely for completely failing GNG.   I assure you, without new and significantly more robust sourcing establishing notability, this article can;t survive and AfD, so you really should start working with the editors trying to salvage this situation while you still have the benefit of their help in this regard.  :I find 's interpretation of the emergent consensus as closest to the reality of the situation, but regardless, this is a case where, even though the majority position seems evident, it would be best to have an administrator close the discussion and we can move on from there.     `