Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dipverse

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Dipverse
I'm not really sure what this is, but it looks like it should be deleted (if not speedy deleted). &mdash; Itai (f&t) 17:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research, nonsense, incompatible with Wikipedia license, non-encyclopedic... pretty much anything. Take your pick, really. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  18:33, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research, licensing issues regarding an article about licensing issues. Appears to be promoting a new form of intellectual-property licensing.  Appears to claim association with efforts of Free Software Foundation, but I've never seen FSF announcements mentioning this.  Article includes pseudonym of apparent creator/proponent of this program, which appears to be an attempt to claim control of all the IP that passes through digital forms.  Someone more active in F/OSS should correct me if I'm wrong and this is legitimate, but it hasn't showed up in, for example, Groklaw's extensive discussions about IP and copyright/patent/licensing issues.  Barno 19:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Per the anonymous creator's comment ( edit history shows creator posted as Wyl.newland, new user created 31 Dec, only edit was this article on 2 Jan ) below, Move to user page and delete from article namespace. See What_Wikipedia_is_not, including under "not a soapbox", items 1 (advocacy), 5 (primary research), and 6 (self-promotion).  However, per the creator's comments, I retract any implication of a hoax.  Well-intentioned newbie was trying to "stake a ... claim in WP" and "invite the future to coexist alongside the recorded past".  That's not the purpose of the wikipedia.  Barno 23:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Josh Cherry 01:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * PatiencePlease review: and leave the dipverse page in place until mid March so I can use it as a living example of why my proposed umbrella license needs to handle trademarks.  Mr. Stallman will require some persuading on the matter.  I also plan to raise the mathematical need for a set comprising all intellectual property works sharing a given set of properties, for example, all works being compatible with wikipedia.  I was going to add the word "wikiverse" but researched it enough to understand that the name was forbidden, because of intellectual property wranglings from the past.  Therefore I made up a word.  I need a linguistic anchor in your universe so that I can explain my theories, show my equations, and publish my inventions.  I understand that my intent is to construct a hypothetical encyclopedia of the future.  Rather that creating yet another intellectual property project, to add to the confusion, I decided to stake an intellectual property claim in wikipedia and see if I could persuade wikipedians to invite the future to coexist alongside the recorded past.  In my estimation, the only requirement for cohabitation is that and &#8220;future POV&#8221; be demarcated in some obvious manner.
 * Can't you put this on your user page? Kappa 21:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pretty dippy. Noel (talk) 23:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.