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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klibc[edit]

Klibc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This poorly referenced article is about klibc. The article claims this is a libc implementation, which would mean it is a library. But the article describes it as a suite of commands and utilities. Either way, the subject doesn't appear to make any claim of notability. Mikeblas 19:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Lack of claims of notability are not valid reasons for deletion at AFD, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Here, we discuss whether a subject actually is or is not notable, not what claims the article may currently make. In that regard, we discuss the presence or absence of multiple non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, such as ISBN 1590595858 which devotes pages 286–289 to this subject. Uncle G 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the authors of the software have titled a system for booting Linux as klibc. klibc is more than a library, but the fact that it is poorly named by the software authors doesn't mean it should be deleted from wikipedia. Bpringlemeir 13:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - it's from H. Peter Anvin - nearly anybody who's seen a Linux system boot has seen his name go by. This is a component in the boot process of many Linux systems - see the reference in Initrd. The article (and the software) is titled correctly; it's the stripped-down libc provided as part of the boot process before the entire libc is available. There may be a suitable merge target for the article, but the content should certainly be kept. I'd let the experts decide how to cover this in the overall Linux coverage. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not everything someone notable does is necessarily notable. -- Mikeblas 00:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The current state of the article is not very good. It is poorly referenced, and it doesn't indicate any notability within the article itself. Listing the programs included is probably a bit of a no-no as well. I have tried to look for sources, but most of what I've found is nothing more than the contents as included in the Linux Kernel. That doesn't make a good choice for building an article, and I'm not sure everything that's in the kernel package is worth having an article on. FrozenPurpleCube 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read the book that I cited above? Uncle G 00:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, why would I? The book itself isn't used as a source in the article, and you didn't even give a title, or describe its contents. It may well be covered in that book, but let's see, less than 5 pages? I'd like you to tell me what worthwhile content is in those pages to make this worth keeping instead. Sorry, but I'm not going to go to the bookstore or library when you don't even bother to say the title, let alone articulate what's in the book. If there is some valid content in it, that might mean something, but with a title like "The Definitive Guide to GCC" I suspect it's not going to establish the individual notability of this component very well. Maybe I'm wrong, but you'll at least have to say why. FrozenPurpleCube 03:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You would read it because it was cited. Moreover: I told you outright what the book discussed. Furthermore: You could have found the title by clicking on the hyperlink. You didn't need it spoon-feed to you (as is clearly evident from the fact that you've written it above). Special:Booksources for that book is just one mouse click away. I even gave you the exact page numbers to read. Read them. Looking at and evaluating sources is what you are supposed to be doing here. When someone cites a source in an AFD discussion, and you don't even look at it, asking instead why you should look at a cited source (a question that boggles the mind when coming from a Wikipedia editor), it is nobody else but you that is not bothering. Uncle G 13:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said "I'd like you to tell me what worthwhile content is in those pages to make this worth keeping instead. Sorry, but I'm not going to go to the bookstore or library when you don't even bother to say the title, let alone articulate what's in the book." Really, you've made a poor case for use of your source as a deciding factor here by not including that information. So do your fellow Wikipedians a favor and at least give us something to go by besides an ISBN and some pages. This is especially relevant because merely being covered in this one single book doesn't necessarily mean anything. I'm sure there's a lot of things about GCC that get covered in detail in that book, how many would I support having articles? Not many I think. You can call me lazy if you want, but you're just going to have to convince me that looking at your source is worthwhile. Otherwise, I'll remain unconvinced that it should have its own article. FrozenPurpleCube 14:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment'. Problem is: the book Uncle G cites above and the article itself say it's a library. But the article says it includes a list of programs, which makes no sense. Given no references, it comes off as nonsense -- even if only in a technical way. Since my questions about this misinformation have gone unanswered for a few weeks, I did AfD with the idea that no information is better than misinformation. -- Mikeblas 01:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. You didn't need AFD to fix the article. ((cleanup-rewrite)) is one of the many other tools that exists. If you see a wholly unsourced article that isn't very well written, you should find sources yourself, wield the merciless sword of verifiability, and rewrite the article as a good stub based upon sources. As you yourself say, the content as it stands doesn't agree with the source that we have. So you have verifiability grounds for zapping it entirely and rewriting the article. Only if you cannot find any (independent) sources after you have searched for them is AFD the place to come. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. You don't need an administrator to hit a delete button. You only need the edit button, which every editor has. You have 1 source now. You even have exact page numbers. Be bold! Uncle G 13:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Mikeblas, but also because this list of the product's components and attributes is just spam copied from the release notes. Worthy of a readme file perhaps, but not notable otherwise. --Gavin Collins 18:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article remains unsourced and the content, as Gavin Collins says, is more suited to release notes than an encyclopaedia article. TerriersFan 02:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the article were rewritten and had reliable sources, I can imagine it might be possible to establish that the topic was notable. But we need to work from what we see in front of us, and what's here is quite disappointing. There are no third parties quoted as to the importance of klibc. Linux is notable, and if this article were smoothly integrated with our other Linux coverage, it would be worth keeping. Even initramfs is way better than this. If anyone wants this article kept because they consider the notability 'obvious', then I'd suggest we strip it down to the first two sentences, because all the rest of the article is misleading and confusing. EdJohnston 05:19, 24 June 2007 (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.