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


 * 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   merge to Free content. Nakon 21:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyfree
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for lack of notability for more than since August 2013. The only references listed in the article are to the organisation itself. No evidence of notability in reliable, independent sources. — Keφr 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't start to think why anyone should think WP would be improved by deleting this article. If someone wants to see what Copyfree is shouldn't they be able to look it up? Also, the answer they would expect is beyond a dictionary definition. This is one of the (rare) cases where the notability criteria lead to an inappropriate result – they are guidelines, after all. And if there were to be consensus we should not have an article, surely this is a (highly) likely search term so should redirect to Free content and whatever would be wrong in merging some of the clearly verifiable information here? Deletion is the wrong thing to be aiming for. Thincat (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this is one of the many situations where the notability criteria measure a subject's prominence quite well. You did not even attempt to refute it. — Keφr 19:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a recreation of a previously deleted article, and still remains non-notable. (Even the section Free content ought to go, for the same reason, but that's a different discussion.) Shreevatsa (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep (else ThinCat's suggestion above if !voting leans the other way). If we can have Beerware, then we can have the larger set in which Beerware belongs. (Given the relative lack of participation in previous AfDs, I'm not lending their results much weight.) Pax 08:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Notability is determined individually. The above is an WP:OTHERCRAP argument. — Keφr 09:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's a good and honourable project, but at the moment still completely irrelevant. Unlike beerware, I can't tell if "version 42" and the alleged history make sense, but software authors use(d) a license with this name for their (almost) freeware. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Be..anyone (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Redirect to Free content. This seems to get some mention in independent reliable sources (quite enough to make it a viable search term), and the suggested target does cite one of these. PWilkinson (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 10:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a slightly obscure web page of a slightly obscure initiative. For comparison, if Freedom would be limited to http://freedomdefined.org I'd support a deletion of Freedom. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Merge to Free content - The subject has too little coverage in reliable sources for a standalone article. Esquivalience t 14:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 07:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Free content. I understand why it is notable but as of now it has not gained enough prominence to be its own article. Very few references to it. If it is gains traction, article can be restored and expanded. —Мандичка YO 😜 08:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Free content, as a functional WP:ATD in this case. North America1000 06:01, 4 April 2015 (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.