Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libreboot (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. I don't see community support for deleting this article. There is talk of a possible Merge but that possibility can be discussed on the article talk page. If you are dissatisfied with this closure, please wait more than two weeks before launching AFD #3. Wait a few months and focus on improving this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Libreboot

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

Libreboot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apologies for withdrawing the previous AfD, and being back here so soon. I'm not sure which criteria to apply, because the core article topic is not really clear or agreed upon - is it a software, a hardware, a company, a movement, within a movement? There are a few more or less reliable sources, but it is difficult to pull together a coherent article without, in essence, a lot of WP:OR. This becomes apparent, to me at least, in the most recent Talk:Libreboot discussions. If you eliminate the less reliable sources (as identified by another editor), it is even more difficult. The few better sources consistently talk about Respects Your Freedom certifications as supported by the Free Software Foundation, in context of reviews of computer hardware sold by "several international companies". Some editors want to twist this into a billboard for one particular vendor of hardware and continue making the article a WP:SPAMPAGE, i.e. "Advertisements masquerading as articles", as it was for years. I conclude it is best to delete and redirect. Reasonable targets include, in alphabetical order: Free_Software_Foundation, GNU, GNU_Project, and List_of_GNU_packages. Why there? As I understand it, not really based on great sources, an incarnation of "Libreboot" was once supported and within the FSF/GNU umbrella, as a GNU project. Then it wasn't. Maybe since 2016 or 2017, but it's not clear when it was in and when it was out, or how many times. There may have been a number of years, perhaps 5'ish, without software releases. One company the article "advertised as an article" for years may have been near bankruptcy and not doing business for some time. Now, as of around March 2023 there is a new "Libreboot" project within the FSF/GNU support umbrella. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and revert the article to its state from this version. I do not consider that to be an WP:SPAMPAGE, it's a just a stub stating a few facts in WP:NPOV language. I have changed quite a few articles that needed translation from promotional to Wikipedia language, this article is not one of those. I'd be fine with adding some sentence about the Libreboot.at project. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    3 Hackaday cites and a WP:TECHCRUNCH, 3 Linux Journal detailed flashing HowTo's and 4 mailing list posts or similar. You can't be serious. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TechCrunch does not seem wrong per se, using a tutorial as a source is not a problem either if the content on Wikipedia itself is not written as a tutorial. Primary mailinglist sources are fine for verification of trivial things like the latest released version or the full name of the project. I agree about Hackaday, I missed that. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's laughable using Vaughan-Nichols ZDNet source, which is all about The Free Software Foundation, "Libiquity's Tarinux X200", Respects Your Freedom, "FSF-endorsed Trisquel GNU/Linux", quotes from Joshua Gay (FSF) and Patrick McDermott (Libiquity), with only passing mention of Libreboot, to cherry pick the statement: "On some devices, Libreboot developers have reverse engineered the firmware from Intel and created a utility to create a free firmware that meets the specifications from Intel." Why do you want a billboard for Libreboot.ORG so badly you would so obviously mis-use this source? This is not applying WP:DUE or WP:NPOV, or basic honesty, frankly. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Yes, that reference has a broader scope indeed. But the subject of this article is "Libreboot", so it is fine to use references that also include information about different things. If there would be an article about Libiquity, then we could use more information from the ZDNet article I suppose. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you agree the Libreboot content is only passing mention, which means the source does not contribute to WP:NOTABILITY. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree for that ZDNet article, but not for other articles. I still think it meets the WP:GNG, albeit not by a large margin. That's also why I think a stub is the most appropriate lenght for this article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    James Gray LinuxJournal.com looks like a copy of a brief product announcement, not significant coverage of Libreboot, and no link to or mention of "Libreboot.org". Bärwaldt linux-magazine.com has coverage of a lot of things, including Rowe the person, Purism_(company), "Several small international companies ... around free BIOS implementations," the "Respects Your Freedom" program, the Free Software Foundation. Whose link is listed first among 7 at the conclusion? FSF. Libreboot.ORG is 3rd of 7. You used it to say "Libreboot is established as a distribution of coreboot, but with some proprietary binary blobs removed from coreboot." Cherry picking again. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and make libreboot.org the main link, with libreboot.at as a footnode. For reasoning, see discussions on the talk page. Basically, other editors here have asserted that since all the cited sources reference libreboot.org, not libreboot.at, then the article is primary about Libreboot as hosted on libreboot.org.
I should note that there is currently a report against Yae4 about the nature of his editing on the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Username_Yae4_engaging_in_persistent_disruptive_editing_of_the_Libreboot_article
As of this time, the Wikipedia admins have not yet responded, but the assertion there is that Yae4 is acting out of bias, in bad faith and that he has attempted to hijack the Libreboot article. The timing of this AfD is curious since the talk page seems to now weigh in favour of libreboot.org, especially since the article now seems to be much better sourced than it was before (and many of those sources were added by Yae4 himself!) Libreleah (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Libreleah has declared COI for Libreboot.ORG, and after making efforts to appear otherwise in the last day or so, after 5 years inactive, still has few or no edits outside this topic. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I've engaged trying to be as neutral as possible, on the project talk page. Regardless of my connection, my arguments against your disruptive and seemingly equally biased edits are valid. It's no coincidence that as soon as the talk page starts weighing in favour of libreboot.org again, as per the wishes of the other editors, you create a new AfD. The timing is too perfect, so it can't be a coincidence; you are losing the argument, and acting out of desperation.
Contrary to your assertion, I have every intention of continuing my activity on wikipedia editing other articles, once this Libreboot business is finished. For example I improved Peter Assmann yesterday by translating some text from the German page which is better sourced. Libreleah (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She's sugessting changes on the talk page, instead of trying to edit the article directly. So she's following the COI policies. Rlink2 (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I describe the out of place lengthy accusations as disruption at Talk:Libreboot, and not following WP:EDITREQ in the slightest. A declared WP:COI editor voting at AfD is amazing. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yae4
I describe the out of place lengthy accusations as disruptin Maddy also thought your SPI filing was disruptive and incoherent. Point being its all an opinion, you may think theres no merit to what shes saying when she thinks she has a fair point. We have to be respectful of all viewpoints.
Regarding no WP:EDITREQ. She doesn't have all the ropes yet as a new editor, so i think we can give her some leeway. Besides, she didn't need to do an EDITREQ because she didn't want to edit the article. Why didn't you suggest this to her in your first reply? Note that the article as it was before was agreed upon by everyone before you changed it.
WP:COI and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide say nothing about COI people voting in AfDs. But even if you don't count her vote, the consensus here and on the talk page is to still use libreboot.org. Rlink2 (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was "frivolous accusations" not "disruptive and incoherent". We'll see. Maybe we'll get some objective opinions from uninvolved editors. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yae4 I would say the only editors that are truly involved is you and PhotographyEdits, since you two were editing the article for some time. Libreleah is also involved due to her connection. Me, Maddy, and DFhib only came after the inital accusations so we were all technically uninvolved. Rlink2 (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PhotographyEdits has edited Libreboot for at least a couple years+/-? Me, a couple weeks+? Yes, the near coincident arrivals of new accounts all supporting re-activated Libreleah, after IPs were blocked, plus behavioral similarities. led me to suspect puppetry, meat or sock. Involved: See WP:INVOLVED for admins, and WP:NACINV for editors. Aren't those talking about involvement in discussions? No mention of whether an article has been edited. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For accuracy, other than the passing mention in a book, "Embedded Firmware Solutions", and Carikli's presentation on abandoning Libreboot.ORG and starting Libreboot.AT, I don't think I found any other sources that hadn't already been in the article before, then were deleted during stubification to a billboard. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed by other editors in the talk page, the current sources (many of which you added yourself) are more than sufficient to support notability of libreboot at libreboot.org; indeed those some editors assert that libreboot.at has weak sourcing, because of most of the current sources refer to libreboot.org, not libreboot.at.
Thus, this 2nd AfD is ludicrous. Libreleah (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I found any other sources that hadn't already been in the article before. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revert to previous version per PhotographyEdits. Rlink2 (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would really appreciate seeing even a half-good explanation of why stubifying an article with poor sourcing is beneficial for Wikipedia or readers. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this AfD seems to be a rather convoluted outcome of an ongoing content dispute on the article, rather than a genuine attempt to question the notability of the topic. jp×g 18:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the previous AfD close for this topic 9 days ago. Reopening a new AfD for the topic just 9 days after the previous keep close is disruptive. Looking at the sources just within the article, there are multiple reliable sources cited like Linux Journal and LWN. I haven't assessed whether these are enough for GNG, but they certainly provide enough verifability that at the least a short summary of the topic could be merged to another article, such as coreboot or another appropriate merge target. Thus I think the closer of the first AfD was correct--outright deletion is unwarranted, but a merge to another article is a reasonable outcome. I'll also note that it is perfectly fine for a COI editor to provide recommendations at AfD. If they can provide evidence for a recommendation that that non-involved editors accept, that's good evidence toward an outcome. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> Reopening a new AfD for the topic just 9 days after the previous keep close is disruptive.

Really? _Fake_Surprise_Emoji. Lourdes an admin IIUC recently advised me in a similar context: "Lastly, why did you withdraw your AfD nomination of Elive which was on its way to be deleted? May I suggest take the article to AfD once more quoting this message of mine? And this time, I would request you to please not withdraw the nomination which was bound to be deleted."

I agree with merging some of the material elsewhere. That seems implicit in my suggestion to redirect. It also seems implicit in other suggestions to stubify the article (with poor sources).

No mention in a 2019 Open-source firmware review article:[1] The source was used by PhotographyEdits to support notability of a list of open-source firmware, including Libreboot. Other open-source firmware is covered. Libreboot is conspicuously absent. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yae, unless you're going to bring up something from WP:DELREASON, this is going to be a speedy keep from me, per WP:SK1. I'm going to leave it to someone else to close this, but there is a material difference between a discussion for which people other than the nominator expressed an opinion in favour of deletion and one where nobody does. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & revert to previous version, per PhotographyEdits. The later additions were almost entirely WP:COATRACK, and any good parts can be discussed individually before re-adding. If I was writing an article on apples, and used book sources that were about fruits in general, it should be obvious that it would be WP:COATRACK and a misuse of sources to spend half the article talking about these other fruits. Every source is clear that Libreboot is a software project; the rest is fluff.
The premise behind this AfD is that (1) when the article reflected what secondary sources said, it was a WP:SPAMPAGE; (2) now that it's a coatrack to off-topic commercial products, and promotes a fork that wasn't covered by any secondary sources, it is no longer a SPAMPAGE; (3) since preliminary consensus is turning against these dubious additions, the article should be deleted. These premises are absurd enough that they don't merit a counterargument, and bringing something to AfD due to (seemingly) losing a content dispute is disruptive. DFlhb (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC) edited, no need to revert since Maddy fixed it 19:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the page to cut down on the WP:COATRACK and related issues. I'll make a source assesment table with the sources now in the article shortly. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-0070-4_4 Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://fossforce.com/2017/01/gnu-officially-boots-libreboot/ Yes No Looks like a blog, no information on editorial practices. Yes ✘ No
https://fossforce.com/2016/09/libreboot-leaves-gnu-claiming-gender-identity-discrimination-fsf/ Yes No Yes ✘ No
https://www.pcworld.com/article/431637/the-free-software-foundation-loves-this-laptop-but-you-wont.html Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.pcworld.com/article/422917/why-linux-enthusiasts-are-arguing-over-purisms-sleek-idealistic-librem-laptops.html Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.zdnet.com/article/a-new-free-software-laptop-arrives/ Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2017/203/Open-Hardware-Technoethical Yes Yes No ✘ No
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2018/210/Free-Firmware-with-Libreboot Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/libreboot-x60-part-i-setup Yes ? There's some uncertainty what kind of editorial staff Linux Journal had when the article was published [2]. The author may also qualify as a WP:SPE. Yes ? Unknown
https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/libreboot-x60-part-ii-installation Yes ? Yes ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.


-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this.
The author of the last two was a columnist at the time of publication (archive link). I think for tech, "columnist" has a much lower connotation of opinionated bloviation, and a better mix of fact-to-opinion compared to politics or other subjects. To compare, I'd put other tech columnists like Walt Mossberg or David Pogue in a different league from all the typical silly op-ed writers. So, opinions may differ, but I'd count it towards GNG. edited 22:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC): wasn't sure how columnists usually get treated at AfD, so I looked around and found this smart 2013 DGG comment: his criteria are the degree of editorial control over the column, and the credibility of the columnist. I'll let others judge the first, but I think we can lean on WP:SPE to satisfy the second. DFlhb (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- https://hackaday.com/2018/08/20/installing-libreboot-the-very-lazy-way/
- https://hackaday.com/2016/12/16/installing-libreboot/
Although per WP:RSN discussion some years ago, there is currently no consensus on the reliability of Hackaday. In case it is established that it is reliable, they would count towards the WP:GNG imho. Personally, I'd say Linux Journal is a reliable source for technical content like this. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm yeah, I'm unsure on Hackaday. The writers and editors seem to be amateurs, but there is some kind of editorial staff at least. It's also not the most controversial area or prone to disinformation. In terms of sigcov, both sources mostly document the process of installing libreboot. I'd say the second one is the stronger one for sigcov, since it addresses a "normal" installation rather than an intentionally hacky one, and it includes more general description of the firmware. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can anyone actually name 3 or 4 independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of libreboot.org, which an RfC proposes as the subject of the article, to support WP:GNG? Thanks for the source assessment, but one FossForce source called "significant" coverage is not.[3] The source literally says: "this entire story is summed up by the above headline. Until we know more, that’s all we know." Regardless, the assessment only claims one source supports WP:GNG. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Kyle Rankin Linux Journal two-part story is reliable significant, and explicitly mentions libreboot.org, if that matters. There's multiple stories about Libreboot (seemingly the .org version?) in this Linux Voice issue: [4]. Here's a PC World issue talking about libreboot (again .org, I think) significantly in the context of the X200: [5]. With passing references (maybe more! I haven't read them all) in multiple other issues and magazines from that mid/late 2010s era. I don't see any reason to delete this article and my vague feeling is it should focus on on the version that's how referred to as the libreboot.org version with a section mentioning forks/etc, at this time. Skynxnex (talk) 22:02, 22 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Libreboot_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1161514935"