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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liberapay (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)

It is difficult to find "significant coverage" to cite. Most content is based on primary sources and insider knowledge of the founder-editor. Yae4 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, and Software. Yae4 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional details:

(also @0xDeadbeef:)

• nextinpact.com 2017 citation is biased. It ends, translated, "What I hope for Liberapay is that the project reaches its goal: to allow a better financing of free software, not only software but also art and everything else. I also hope that the public will recognize the huge work that a project like Liberapay represents and support its development more" concludes its co-creator. The next evolutions should be detailed during a conference at the Libre Software Meeting (LSM) in Saint Etienne, France, in early July." It looks based on an embedded Youtube video, which was self-published by Liberapay. Not very independent. Nextinpact Not yet discussed at WP:RSN. Cited about 40 times.
• linuxfr.org 2016 heading says "Posted by Zatalyz (personal website) on 11/30/16 at 08:32. Edited by 7 contributors. Moderated by ZeroHeure." It appears to be a user-generated group blog post; therefore Unreliable for wikipedia per WP:USERGENERATED. Not discussed at WP:RSN; Cited ~27 times.
• Numerama citation is a summary description in a list of 5 similar platforms summaries. Not significant coverage. Not discussed at WP:RSN; cited ~70 times.
• Opensource citation, which I added in Special:Diff/1139491501, is the one apparently reliable source with significant coverage. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. There are several sources available that should push this to meet GNG, but I'm not entirely sure about the reliability of some of these sources: [1][2][3][4] 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has over 100 incoming links from other Wikipedia articles. The 2018 opensource.com article[5], along with additional sources, establishes notability. (opensource.com has been publishing for over 13 years, and longer under different names before that.) Primary sources in the article (links to liberapay.com) are used primarily to support statements of which projects and organizations use the platform. --Bensin (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bensin: There are many more primary sources, including Libera pay Weblate, About (a couple times). Also a Patreon Support post, self-published about Patreon. A few Liberapay Tweets (mea culpa for adding one). -- Yae4 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are others, but most of the links to liberapay.com are the ones I added as sources for statements of which projects use Liberapay. If there are better sources for other statements you are of course free to change to them, or remove unsubstantiated statements. --Bensin (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources about this website, already included in the article. I really don't understand what made the nominator start this. —Alalch E. 17:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alalch E.: There was no response to my Notability comment at Talk:Liberapay, and I felt getting uninvolved editor opinions would be good. Yae4, Bensin and Alalch_E. are involved at Liberapay.[6] -- Yae4 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Involved in what sense? —Alalch E. 18:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Editors of the article. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not much of an editor of the article, and even if i was my opinion in this AfD is as welcome as anyone else's. —Alalch E. 19:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed. Even Changaco's opinions are welcome, as primary editor of the article.[7] Uninvolved opinions are usually good or better, however, when backed by guidelines. Yae4 (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • My opinion is better than yours at the very least, judging by your inadequate assessment of a source such as Next INpact. That journalist, Guénaël Pépin, rooting for Liberapay at the end means nothing for evaluating that source([8]) for the purposes of this discussion. The website is independent from Liberapay, it is a registered, regulated, journalistic outlet that passed CPPAP admission criteria (link); it exists in the highly-regulated French media landscape. The article is substantial and contains predominantly statements of fact. Mixing some personal opinion with the news at the end is perfectly normal in journalism. That just makes for better, more lively, journalism. This is not just a reliable source. This is the highest-quality source, that is actually usable for determining notability, that I've seen challenged in an AfD for a while. —Alalch E. 20:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yae4, when you write (here) that "Yae4, Bensin and Alalch_E. are involved at Liberapay." what do you mean by that? --Bensin (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors of the article. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Added another source, this time Linux Format: Special:Diff/1140182151 —Alalch E. 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

another... Special:Diff/1140184656 —Alalch E. 21:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question @Yae4: Can you please follow WP:AFDFORMAT and put your replies in the usual places? How is someone supposed to reply to you when you clutter the top with your replies to everyone? It isn't chronological and it's highly odd. —Alalch E. 19:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - With the coverage in sources like Linux Format and opensource.com among others, the article's subject certainly meets WP:GNG and the first point of WP:NSOFT. The content of the article could certainly use cleanup and a lot less reliance on WP:MEDIUM but as a subject notability is there. - Aoidh (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources demonstrate notability, though the article is in need of cleanup and has some potential COI issues. That isn't an issue for AFD, we aren't at the WP:TNT tipping point. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Article has lots of problems but that is not an AFD issue. Looks like GNG is borderline but satisfied to the normal degree. North8000 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 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.