Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free and open source software


 * 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. I would strongly suggest a merge or converting this to a disambiguation page. Mr.  Z- man  20:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Free and open source software

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Free software is a topic with a detailed article, and open-source software is another related/similar topic with a detailed article. "Free and open source software" refers to these two topics, but isn't a topic in itself. "Free and open source software" has no de facto or de jure definition, no poster boy, not even a website. This probably explains why the article can't get past stub level - there's not much to write about. Insofar as the name is interesting, that topic has a detailed article at alternative terms for free software. Links to this stub article are simply duplicating (poorly) and hiding existing articles which each have tens or 100+ contributors and years of editing. I recommend it be made a redirect (or a disambiguation page). Gronky 13:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Closing Admin: Please review Talk:Free and open source software, in making your decision on the AfD. Thanks. Lentower 22:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Alternative terms for free software as there's no real content here which isn't already there. As a slight aside, I think something done about the title of that page as well ("Terms for free and open-source software"?) --Pak21 13:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose per rationale given at Talk:Free and open source software. There's an ongoing discussion to merge free software and open source software (amongst others: the intensely pro-FSF POV alternative terms for free software should probably go as well) into the catch-all FOSS article to avoid the high levels of duplication at the moment. Free software articles in general at moment are strongly weighted in favour of the FSF's position, which is that all permissive software is free software and should be examined in that light. Meanwhile, real-world usage of FOSS/FLOSS etc. has expanded. In light of ongoing discussion in this area, a delete is unwarranted (especially when the nonimator's preferred redirect, alternative terms for free software, is strongly subjective). Chris Cunningham 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ongoing discussion? Where? --Gronky 13:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * At Talk:Free and open source software (note to other editors: such innocent overlooking of precedent, existing discussion and current work is a hallmark of the way these discussions have gone before). Chris Cunningham 13:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That thread died a week ago, and only 4 editors ever chimed in, and there was no mention of it on Talk:Free software or Talk:Open-source software. --Gronky 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Week-old discussions aren't "dead". In this case, I suppose you'll have to take my word for it that there's been off-wiki discussion of this merge, but I'm planning on doing more on-wiki soon. Regardless, the point was simply that there has been discussion of a merge, and the preliminary suggestion of AfD met with opposition there, so it would seem ill-judged to go deleting it right now. Chris Cunningham 14:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Before going to AfD, it would have been appropriate for Gronky to ask on Talk:Free software, Talk:Open-source software, Talk:Alternative terms for free software, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Free Software for editors to come to Talk:Free and open source software to discuss both the deletion and merger proposals there. Additional attempts at consensus there, might have avoided the overhead of an AfD, including the closing admin's time.  Gronky's prematurely going to AfD is an abuse of the AfD process, and he is not acting in good faith. Prediction: Gronky will comment on many other's editor's entries here, when they oppose his subjective POV. Lentower 11:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep For now, premature. I'd let the ongoing merger talks work out on their own from people already familiar with the intricacies of the subject matter. • Lawrence Cohen  16:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.   —•  Lawrence Cohen  16:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I admit to only lurking in the previous discussion, but I agree that it is too soon for an AfD.  I'd actually like the "alternative terms" article to be rewritten a bit & this would be a less biased title for that article.  --Karnesky 23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Keep. WP needs to find a way to merge the Free software, Open-source software articles, as well as simliar pairs of articles from these two movements. They discuss two concepts that are similar.  Each is written by partisan editors of two differing camps with different and non-neutral POVs (just go and read each of them!) .  This is not good for our encyclopedia, and our readers.  This title might not be quite right as the title for the merged article, but it's a good place to start. Lentower 11:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable neogolism. I see many assertions in the discussions, but no reliable sources being sited as evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If WP:NEO isn't a problem for free software or for open source software, how can it possibly be invoked as an issue for an article that merely discusses both entities? (Also note that you added this to the software-related deletions list a second time.) --Karnesky 02:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, there are already way way too many useless articles about FS and OSS and combinations thereof. Merge plans can be discussed without creating more. NicM 19:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep. No good reason to delete.  At worst, redirect somewhere.  Editors involved seem to be discussing wider mergers, and they should be left to it.  --SmokeyJoe 13:57, 25 October 2007 (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.