Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I, Librarian


 * 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 delete. The deletion rationale was not rebutted. While the discussion was lightly attended in spite of two relists, I do see a rough consensus since the issues were thoroughly discussed. I am willing to restore this article to draft status upon request, or anyone may ask at [WP:REFUND]]. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I, Librarian

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Others have tagged this with CSD and PROD, the first declined and the second contested, so I'm bringing this up at AfD to get a more clear consensus. To me the subject does not appear to pass WP:NCORP. Two independent sources are given in the article. The Linux.org article only name-checks the service. The Scientist article seems better, and perhaps even qualifies as significant coverage in a reliable independent publication. I'm unsure of that one, but taking it at face value, I am having a hard time finding another source to satisfy "multiple". As it doesn't seem to satisfy our notability guidelines, I think it should be deleted. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 11:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not see a problem in the lack of independent sources. This is a description of a piece of software, not an opinion or claim. Users should test the software and decide if it is appropriate for their needs. The topic of this article is an outline of the main features of I, Librarian, focusing on where it differs from other reference managers, what it is doing better and what worse. The aim is to help the potential users make an informed decision on whether trying this software is a worthy investment of their time.


 * It is a general problem in software that reviews cannot be trusted. Access to the source code is some sort of assurance. It is helpful if there is a large community of users to monitor, document and explain the source code to new users but this is not always possible. I, Librarian is an open source software, so experienced users at least can evaluate any statements in the article themselves.


 * There are many other reference managers, like JabRef, Zotero, KBibTeX and Pybliographer without many external independent references. None of these pages satisfies the criterion of independent sources, but if they were deleted then only a few popular and proprietary managers will be left in wikipedia, like Mendeley. I don't think this would be appropriate. Many of the open source managers are better for some tasks than proprietary ones, and wikipedia is one of the few places were comprehensive reviews and comparisons of this software can be found. In my opinion practical information like this is important for an encyclopedia. Is there any way to classify this article as useful practical information?


 * Gkaf (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem about the lack of independent sources is that it causes the subject to fail WP:N; also, see "other stuff exists". Delete per Wugapodes unless more coverage is identified. Catrìona (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The insistence on independent sources makes this AfD request fail WP:5P5 and guideline Ignore all rules.
 * The article has a well defined purpose that fits in a wider context. There is the Comparison of reference management software article that lists the main features of each reference manager. The user needs some more information before installing a reference manager, so each reference manager has a short wikipedia entry.
 * I would prefer a functional reason for deleting the I, Librarian page. Rules are arbitrary when they don't take into account the context and the function of the article.
 * The WP:NCORP policy mentioned in the AfD request does not seem appropriate for this article. The policy WP:DIRECTORY would be more appropriate, but the whole section on reference managers is organized in a directory like manner. Is there a reason to change this approach? Gkaf (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your time would be better spent finding independent, reliable sources that show notability than it is arguing technicalities (see WP:HELPAFD). We have no firm rules, but we do have rules; you need good reasons to convince others to ignore or change them. IAR is not a carte blanche; it means you can be bold, not that other people have to accept your boldness. IAR is at its weakest when the justification violates what wikipedia is not, and trying to justify an exception from notability guidelines on IAR grounds is difficult because they exist to make sure that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information based on the first pillar: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. My functional argument is that this article does not meet our inclusion criteria, and yours is that you don't want to follow those criteria.
 * The page Comparison of reference management software does not list any reference management software that WP:EXISTS. It lists only blue links, articles that already exist. It is a summary of the articles we have on software that are notable enough to have already been included in the encyclopedia. It is not a directory of reference management software, but a directory of the encyclopedia. If something is not fit for inclusion in the encyclopedia, is not fit for inclusion there. Your justification gets the situation backwards; that article does not justify the creation of articles on any existing bibliography manager. If something is not fit for inclusion as a separate article, it doesn't matter what list it could be included in: it is not fit for inclusion and so should be deleted. The article I, Librarian, from my and Catrìona's perspective, does not pass the bar for inclusion in Wikipedia and so should neither have an article nor be included in Comparison of reference management software. Your justification relies upon readers using Wikipedia as akin to a buyer's guide, not an encyclopedia.
 * Finally, NCORP does and clearly applies here, as even though it is a FOSS project, it still falls under the scope of that guideline based on the first two sentences: This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. If you still believe those sentences do not describe this product and the people who produce it, Catrìona also pointed out that it fails the basic WP:GNG, which I also agree with. Both NCORP and the GNG require independent reliable sources which we cannot find and do not believe to exist. To convince us otherwise, the best way to do so is to find them and show them to us, not argue about rules. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 21:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to draft to provide an opportunity for expansion and addition of encyclopedic sources if these can be found. bd2412  T 03:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.