Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LibreOffice Calc


 * 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   no consensus. Courcelles 23:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

LibreOffice Calc

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A separate article for each component of LibO is not necessary. The article lists features in a self-promo manner, and includes a changelog and a comparison section with MS Excel. Lots of original research and tags. —Fitoschido [shouttrack] \\ 9 September, 2011 [10:37]


 * all wikipedia articles start bad and improve later, and all your comments about the quality of this article being low apply to the openoffice.org calc article and even the ms excel article as well.
 * lo.calc is an almost identical fork of oo.calc and so of course they will have very similar articles.
 * also eventualy the lo.calc will grow quite large in size and surely you woudlnt wanna put all that info into the main LOffice article since that would make that article huge.
 * the liboffice article should be a summary and the component articles should be more in depth.
 * also please state specific examples where the current lo.calc article is deficient wen compared the oo.calc or ms excel article, general criticism is not constructive.
 * please dont let the wikipedia turn into a deletionfest like the sparse german wikipedia, as long as the refs are clearly and truthfully sourced we should be more accepting to articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * when you look at articles like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Engraver which are of closed source software that shamelessly self promotes then you can claim people have a financial interest in promoting such software. but libreoffice is a charity and and wikipedia is a very expansive encylopedia, so surely it should include an article on the most widely used opensource spreadsheet program. i cant beleive someone would actually think that this very popular foss app would be non-notable.
 * rather than deleting articles on a foss programs, why not peruse some of the most egregious and shameless marketing stunts being pulled on other articles about closed source software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * all the original research in that article was inherited from the oo.calc article, so remove it on both articles, there is no need to delete the libreoffice calc or the openoffice calc articles  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - please just take a look at the libreoffice writer article, it was terrible at first but look at it, now, a whole bunch of new editors have come in and are polishing it, this article just needs a bit of time, its only a few days old — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: - I just reviewed the LibreOffice Writer article and despite all the work done on it it still doesn't make WP:GNG. I have just tagged it for notability for now, pending the outcome of this discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a no-brainer history merge back to OpenOffice.org Calc, which is where 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 forked it from the other day. The two products are not yet differentiated enough to warrant separate articles. For now, differences between LO Calc and OOo Calc can easily be noted on the main LibreOffice article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there should definitely be no merge. LibreOffice and OpenOffice are different pieces of software at this point, use different trademarks, and are run by different entities. What's more, LibreOffice is the standard on major platforms such as Ubuntu Linux, while OpenOffice is not. Steven Walling &bull; talk   02:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Different trademarks and different entitites" is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is sources which have non-trivial coverage of the fork independent to either the otiginal project or the main LibreOffice subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - after having done a large number of edits on this article trying to fix up the mess created by copying an existing article and changing the names, I can only conclude that the required reliable third party refs to show notability do not exist and it therefore fails WP:GNG. LibreOffice itself is notable, but Calc only gets the odd passing mention in third party sources. This is not uncommon with components, as a particular model of car may be notable, but the tires or bolts used in it (constituent components) are not. If you check the LibreOffice talk page you will see that the article creator was warned by me before he started the article that he should make sure he had enough independent third part refs for notability, but this advice was ignored. Note for User:123465421jhytwretpo98721654, most of your arguments above constitute WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which basically says that we don't keep crappy articles just because Wikipedia has other crappy articles. - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Are you kidding me? There are plenty of sources and Calc meets the general notability guideline with flying colors. LibreOffice Calc and the other individual applications within the LibreOffice set are deployed as the standard office apps on literally tens of millions of computers running Ubuntu Linux and similar distros. Steven Walling &bull; talk   02:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's all just rhetoric. How many reliable secondary sources have non-trivial coverage of the Calc portion of LibreOffice independently to coverage of LibreOffice itself or OpenOffice.org Calc? It is precisely because of the failure to meet the GNG that this is up here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. The fact that a piece of software is immensely popular is relevant to whether it meets the general notability guideline, and there are sources in the article to back that up. If what's present in the article is too trivial for you, there are a couple dozen results to pick from in books and news, the latter even without searching the archives. Take your pick. Steven Walling &bull; talk   19:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think there are sufficient refs that deal with Calc, as opposed to LibreOffice in general, then please do add them to the article and we can check them over and then wrap this up quickly. - Ahunt (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep LibreOffice, like OpenOffice before it is a collection of components. base componenents are calc, writer, impress, base, math and draw. Here are few references: http://www.opensource-usability-labs.com/tine20/2011/09/07/libreoffice-user-research-%E2%80%93-results-vol-3/ this one shows that calc is the 2nd most used module of the suite, after writer  http://kohei.us/2011/02/14/fosdem-2011-slide-latest-updates/  www. .com/product/paperback/libreoffice-3-calc-guide/16075944 (lulu is apparently banned... so let's try amazon... much more reliable right ? ) http://www.amazon.com/LibreOffice-Functions-Formulas-Essential-ebook/dp/B0051J8FD4  http://www.excitingip.com/1415/libre-office-calc-spreadsheet/ http://ubuntumanual.org/topics/libreoffice-calc . As far as 'being the same as OpenOffice': First OpenOffice.org is a dead project; the source code has been abandoned by Oracle and dumped into a poddling at the Apache Foundation... where it may or may not come out of it, one day, as Apache Open Office.... Second, now for numbers: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/LibreOffice-and-OpenOffice-org-drift-apart-1338511.html. Shmget (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;A significant component of a solidly notable software offering from the open source community. The only question is whether it should be merged or stand alone; I prefer the latter. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Libre office is sufficiently famous that the individual major components of it are notable, and are often reviewed separately. They are in fact derivative of Open Office,--but I would not call OpenOffice dead, exactly, since it isstill so widely used, or delete the articles on it either.  DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 16 September 2011 (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.