Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libreboot

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ without prejudice to further discussion of potential merges. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Libreboot[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. My assessment of citations is at Talk:Libreboot#AfD_or_Merge?, except a book cite I added, which would rate as passing mention. ~~I have been unable to find sufficient sourcing to justify a stand-alone article on Libreboot.org (and/or the associated business). My suggestion is merge and redirect to Open-source_firmware~~, which also currently is not well sourced; however, PhotographyEdits prefers to merge into Coreboot, so I am here to ask for impartial opinions on delete, merge, and to where. Background: Since the approximate peak content in August 2021,[1] the article has been stubified, mostly by PhotographyEdits, partly by justified deletions of some poorly sourced living person information. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC) Yae4 (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have found a few more, more or less reliable and independent sources covering "Libreboot", such as coverage in PC World. This gives more background, including existence of more companies' efforts to sell products with "Libreboot". I now feel, we will be able to have a decent article, after spending some time at WP:RSN, and probably WP:COIN, and maybe WP:SPI, unfortunately. This assumes proponents of one particular effort to sell products with Libreboot are unsuccessful in their painfully obvious efforts to control the article in biased directions. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Yae4 (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into coreboot, as already stated by the nominator. Coreboot meets the WP:GNG and Libreboot is essentially the same software without proprietary binaries. If merged to Open-source firmware, this would put undue weight on the Libreboot subject, in the coreboot article it would be appropriate. The current content of the article can be kept since it is reliable sourced. In case more in-depth articles can be found about Libreboot, I am open to change my mind and vote for keeping the article, but for now I agree with the nominator it does not meet the WP:GNG. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Libreboot now is essentially one paragraph, not counting the repetition in the lead. One paragraph is hardly an over-weight addition to a stub like Open source firmware, which needs additions.

Factual correction: As I understand it from citations, Libreboot from Libreboot.at will be "the same software without proprietary binaries." Libreboot from Libreboot.org has "some proprietary binary blobs removed from coreboot", quoting Libreboot. The existence of two separate "Libreboot" projects currently, and whether to mention this fact, with cite, is a point of contention. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should be merged into coreboot, as already stated by the nominator. Libreboot does not meet the general notability guideline. It still has has some verifiable facts, so it might be useful to discuss it within the coreboot article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edidds (talk • contribs) 19:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)— Edidds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge into coreboot per PhotographyEdits. Dawnbails (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Libreboot article should be deleted. It is quite distinct from coreboot and clearly meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. It has clear sources provided, from notable organizations and people. I can point to countless other articles on Wikipedia that are similarly light, but otherwise meet guidelines. If Libreboot is buried within the coreboot article, then people won't as easily be able to find out about it. The Libreboot's own homepage shows how different it is to coreboot; merging with coreboot would be like talking about GNU Emacs on the Linux article, just because Emacs happens to run under Linux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.219.0 (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC) — 92.40.219.0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and geolocates to UK, home of Libreboot org and their business.[reply]
Emacs is an application that runs on Linux. Libreboot isn't an application that runs on Coreboot. Libreboot's own homepage explicitly says it's largely the same software, and characterizes the difference as: In the same way that Alpine Linux is a Linux distribution, Libreboot is a coreboot distribution.

In a hypothetical world where there aren't very many Linux distributions, and one of them was notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia but not enough to get its own article, redirecting to a section of Linux seems like a reasonable thing to do. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 06:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a misleading argument anyway: Red_herring? In fact, GNU Emacs is written about, or at least mentioned in a couple places, in Linux, but I still think Open-source firmware is a better place to merge into. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> It is quite distinct from coreboot and clearly meets Wikipedia notability guidelines.

Per WP:3REFS, please point out 3 sources that have in-depth, secondary, reliable and independent coverage.

>If Libreboot is buried within the coreboot article, then people won't as easily be able to find out about it.
This is true and a good reason to prefer keeping the article in my view. But for this, we need the sources. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Factual accuracy: WP:3REFS does not include the word "secondary". Yes, in general we say we prefer secondary, if we can agree what it is. :) -- Yae4 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (Nominator) I wish to withdraw the AfD, if possible. I've concluded it won't help to merge with Open-source firmware, as the same issues have already come up on Talk there, and it won't help to merge with Coreboot, which is better left as a more focused article. The problems here are probably better handled at WP:COIN and WP:RSN. Other suggestions from uninvolved editors would be welcome.
The surface issue here is sourcing. The root issue here is WP:COI. Some editors want Libreboot to be solely about (i.e. advertising for) the latest manifestation of a small business trying to sell computers that boot with what they now call Libreboot. They want to include some self-published (or is it primary, or secondary?) cites for including selected, marketing info, such as devices available from the marketing arm of Libreboot-ORG. On the other hand, they want to exclude other similar, but maybe more reliable, cites for even mentioning Libreboot-AT, and what they also call Libreboot. It seems these editors also want to exclude basic history: What is currently called Libreboot-ORG, was previously called Gluglug,[2] but oddly this is only mentioned now in Coreboot. Gluglug and Libreboot-ORG were previously working with the Free Software Foundation, et al., on again, off again, naming, re-naming, all basic facts that should be included in a history with OK cites.
Example: A glance at Crocfarts short, WP:SPA, and targeted edit contributions and Wikimedia uploads shows clearly what they did here: add to Libreboot and take away from Coreboot. Also, they ignored discussion of Phoronix as a source (no consensus, with puppetry), at User_talk:Crocfarts, and deleted Phoronix-cited info, at Coreboot. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has changed substantially since this AfD was opened, with many good edits by Yae4, so I think it would be prudent to accept the withdrawal of the AfD. The topic is in flux so there will be more work ahead, but that wouldn't be made easier by a merge to another article. Nemo 16:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support the withdrawl of this AfD since other people already voted for different viewpoints. If everyone revises their standpoint then sure, but for now the closer needs to evaluate the consensus of this discussion. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, an AfD with only keep or merge opinions is SK1. AfD isn't intended to be the place for merge discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep look good to me, certainly not delete - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.