Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scanner Access Now Easy

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The result was Speedy Keep as Withdrawn by nominator Rincewind42 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scanner Access Now Easy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article (about a kind of software/API product) does give any indication of notability. The references are primary references or self-published blogs. The article lacks non-trivial reliable secondary sources to establish notability as per WP:N. A Google search for additional sources came up blank. The subject of the article may be related to other notable products but notability is no inherited and this product has not generated its own coverage by secondary sources. The article should be deleted on notability grounds. Rincewind42 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Rincewind42 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Based on the new sources provided by czarkoff notability has been established. I believe that these are sufficient works on which the Wikipedia article could be based. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are similar articles on TWAIN, Windows Image Acquisition and Image and Scanner Interface Specification, comparable APIs for other platforms. Several of the references are to project pages for software that implements SANE, which seem like secondary sources to me. A quick check on google turned up a set of slides by Petter Reinholdtsen - perhaps not the be-all-and-end-all of WP:RS but I think, taken with the rest, enough to establish notability. GoldenRing (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the style of subject that is in question but the notability of the subject. Other scanner API may be notable, some may not. Your comment is like saying that all basketball players are notable because Michael Jordon has an article. Just because one example of a kind has an article doesn't mean that all of that kind should have an article. Secondly, can you link to those slides so we can all see. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two weeks late for this kind of nominations. Quick glance at "books" and "scholar" search reveals quite a lot of sources. (And in this particular case I feel myself excused from WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, as sources are really numerous, subject is obviously notable and I have no interest in writing this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, a search found only trivial mentions of SANE. Not sufficient to form the basis or an ecyclopedic article. I don't see why your comment should be exempt form WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. In fact I think that policy is describing your comment exactly. Nobody is asking you to write the article but if you have a source, add that link to the references section at lease or link it in the talk here. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

eg Surhone, Tennoe & Henssonow, Scanner Access Now Easy, or Christopher Negus' Linux Bible 2010 Edition (relevant portion available on Google Books), or Lecarme & Delware's The Book of GIMP. GoldenRing (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen all those titles before making the Afd. Surhone, Tennoe & Henssonow, Scanner Access Now Easy is a self published book made through Book on Demand. The cover has a big sticker saying "High Quallity content by WIKIPEDIA articles" (their emphasis). It is not a reliable source by any metric. Lecarme & Delware's The Book of GIMP contains only a passing reference that if you use Linux the recommend SANE, but the book does not describe SANE in any way. Most of what Lecarme & Delware write is about XSane and GMIP. Note that XSane is a GUI that uses SANE but that XSane is not SANE. SANE is the backend only. Christopher Negus' Linux Bible 2010 Edition and several other books by the same author (containing the same republished text) give a few sentences but are insufficient in and of themselves to establish notability. Note the requirement in WP:N for multiple non-trivial secondary works on the subject. If you keep going through google books you will find the other books merely list SANE as something that exists with no description form which a verifiable Wikipedia article can be based. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I spent several minutes searching for sources. Apparently this book shows that SANE is required topic for certification (which seems to qualify for WP:NSOFT#2). OK, NSOFT is essay, and we fall back to WP:GNG: Linux Magazine, Linux Journal, Linux.com The Linux Documentation Project, LowEndMac, O'Reilly LinuxDevCenter, PenguinBreeder, and several books discuss it (3 pages in "Linux in a nutshell", 2 pages in "OpenSolaris Bible", more similar on first page of search; I didn't try second page). Scholar search appears to have interesting results (eg. this paper appears to discuss their use of SANE for accessibility), but without text it is difficult to say. P.S.: the article is not abour sane-backends, but about SANE in its entity. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you czarkoff for these new sources. They are sufficent. Since there are no other objectors, I am going to close this Afd as "withdrawn by nominator". I hope you can add these sources to the current article in place of the poor quality sources that are there just now. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Linux Magazine and Linux Journal articles pointed out by Dmitrij are independent and in depth; the Linux Bible source has about a page on SANE and contributes. These are enough for a marginal notability per WP:GNG. The article itself could use more secondary sources, but this is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. A marginally notable topic and and an article with no insurmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2014 (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.