Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenBiblio


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OpenBiblio

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Appears to be a non-notable software, despite a large number of google scholar hits. See this discussion. Pcap ping  09:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  09:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Google scholar shows its listed as one of the available programs for the purpose, but not the most widely used.   DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – DGG I am shocked, after reading your user page, that you would express an opinion of delete. Though the program is not the most widely used software for Integrated Library System’s with regards to cataloging, and administration modules, it is still one of the notable systems in use today and used by a number of institutions.  There are more than enough articles in news sources and scholarly works that give affirmation to the products worthiness to establish enough independent coverage to warrant inclusion here at Wikipedia.  JAAG  Talk 04:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit my near complete ignorance of the market of this kind of software, but "used by a vast number of institutions"... Pcap ping  08:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * N.B.: I see you removed "vast". DGG did point out on his talk page that the number of installations is small, and at not so well known sites. Pcap ping  14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right that it is not the most popular program, but it is gaining wide support in the wiki environment as an open software for cataloging and other functions. And you were right in pointing-out my use of the word vast.  That is why I removed it.  Regarding the piece itself, I believe it has enough coverage in scholarly works and news reviews to be included on Wikipedia.  I am going to rewrite the article itself with better references that should establish a case for notability.  However, to be honest, it will never be a large piece, but should be a good short piece.  Regarding DGG, I was just surprised that he would express a delete given his background as a librarian.  Thank you.  JAAG  Talk 14:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - The current references of the OpenBiblio article are just too weak, and if that's all there is, there is no base of reliable information from which the article can be improved. (One of the two references is a report that OpenBiblio was *considered* for adoption in three South American countries in 2005. What happened after that?). So, the notability is not there at present. I might change my vote if more sources could be found before the AfD closes. The paper by Mike Castellec noted by DGG at User_talk:DGG has in its reference list more than a dozen articles about open-source library software that are published in reliable sources, such as Library Journal. One could dig up those articles and see what they say. I am glad to see we have Wikipedia articles on LibLime, Koha (software), and Evergreen (software). These are all in the space of open source library software but they seem to be much better known than OpenBiblio. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It may not be appropriate to compare OpenBiblio with LibLime, Koha (software), and Evergreen (software), as OpenBiblio is designed to run via a web server (with MySQL database support) as opposed to requiring a dedicated server, allowing the library to run the software via a Web hosting service. This and feature limitations are the main reasons that the libraries using it tend to be small (as is the library for which I have installed the software).  It is a niche software, and as such I suspect that it might be appropriate to have OpenBiblio be relegated to a section of a page devoted to web-based library management software such as PhpMyLibrary and PhpMyBibli.  I don't know the criteria used to make that decision, and would have to defer to those who are more familiar with Wikipedia.  Regarding the number of installations, there does seem to be a significant number of results when one performs a Google search of the language in the software's footer:  Powered by OpenBiblio Rcmason (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- changed opinion. On the basis of what I said in the context of another AfD,  I like others am probably too harsh in judging in my own speciality. (In fact, I had this very article in mind when I made the comment there.)  It's not one of the major ones, but it is significant.    DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 7 January 2010 (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.