Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funding of 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   delete due to OR and POV issues. Unreferenced article, no evidence here that the topic is potentially sourcable. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Funding of open source software

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not a real article. Just unreferenced (no, that's no real reference), badly written original research. Damiens .rf 04:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Contains references, isn't badly written, valid content for an encyclopedia. QuiteUnusual (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but provide references (so tagged) and rewrite with Gratis versus Libre in mind. At least most of this can be done by global find/replace OSS with freeware or free software or FLOSS as appropriate. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Source, rewrite in narrative form, and merge into Open source software. The explanation of why developers and others undertake efforts without expectation of monetary payment seems essential to even a rudimentary understanding of that topic and does not appear to be adequately treated at that article. Pop Secret (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Just in case you didn't notice, i think you may have posted the response to a different but related AfD. Obviously, no one would think that this article provides any of the information you claim, even as the highly biased original research it is, it doesn't claim to explain why people produce open source software. I can say as someone who has open sourced software, worked on open source projects for businesses and even worked on public free software projects, that i did not do it for the funding expressed in this highly based original research article. The few points expressed here with credit are all treated fairly well on the open source and free software articles, especially considering funding is such a small topic, highly unspecific to open source (read: half of these funding method, ignoring the author's opinions on reasoning, are just as valid as they are for closed source project. Or as it happens in the reality away from the very small part of open source represented by Richard Stallman, projects are funded, and businesses or developers decide about the source availabity and other licensing points such as freedom at a later date.)- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Excellent fork of Open source software. Unreferenced maybe, but irrefutably has some basic factual content. People realy need to give better deletion reasons than 'not a real article'. MickMacNee (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we can really source all that. Isn't that just original research? There is published material available for that? --Damiens .rf 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per User:MickMacNee --T-rex 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The article needs a vigourous rewrite. However, the subject is notable in regard to the open source sector. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely needs some work and references, but I think this is one of the most important parts of open source software. swa  q  17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Firstly, the article is unsourced as a topic, with only 2, very non-specific (a listing to other articles at MIT), references for the actual data. Secondly, it is highly unencylopedic, I notice, and for obvious reason that there does not exist an article on the funding of non-open source software, perhaps because it is such a tiny facet of all business that to pretend like it deserves an exception is beyond recognition of Wikipedia's consensual support of Open Source Software as an ideal over the standard business practice of choosing such things on a per product basis, or as a corporate decision. I am refering here not only to software companies here, but to general Business practice, all facets of which do not having equally as useless and POV articles. Specifically, this article, which doesn't source one of it's conclusions, or profer an alternate Point of View on any point, Provides the information in a format that is far from useful or encyclopedic. It would be better suited as a properlly formatted and passage-based article, and indeed, many of the pertinent points are already included in other, well written and sourced articles on the subject. I would not support a merge, given that it appears to have been written as one man's opinion on he subject, and none of the content that could be saved, is unique, infact the serious points enjoy comfortable places of rest in well sourced passages already on other pages. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I would also like to add to my above Reason for deletion, and to make sure it is noticed by people who bore of my above reason half way through. As the ultimate proof that this is complete WP:OR, the entrie article, as well as many comments here imply that open source software is a Venture undertaken for no profit, that is externally funded. Open source and Free Software can both be sold for a price, produced by a corporation, whose emloyees recieve payment as part of that employment, and are entirely seperate from the monetary aspects of business. While many public project undertaken on the internet for example recieve donations or external funding, the majority of open source is not specially funded. The implication that all open source is freeware is also complete gibberish, even in terms of the rest of this article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The exact motivations for a given open source project and why it is open source are unique to the project itself. Without scholarly sourcing of the classification defined here in, coupled with the open speculation in the article's text, is almost a textbook definition of WP: OR. This article is such blatant OR that it might make sense to move it into namespace and use it as an example of OR. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Most open source projects are developed using private resources so there is really no separate funding for this. I9o0q1 (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: User's first edit MickMacNee (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or rewrite. It contains effectively nothing at the moment. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 06:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't delete or rewrite. If it needs a rewrite and that's why you're voting delete, that is a case of WP:PROBLEM. It would also be helpfully if you explained the term "contains effectively nothing", it is probably pretty hard for others to compreghend what you actually mean by that. MickMacNee (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research.  Sandstein   21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Explain please. A two word vote is not going to fly for an article that has so many basic statements of fact independant of any POV. We do not source every single statement on wikipedia to defend against accusations of original thought. We have unsourced/citation needed templates for a reason, Afd is not article cleanup. MickMacNee (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're being pedant. Those things in the article are far from "basic statements of fact". --Damiens .rf 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hardly think I'm being pedantic by objecting to the assertion that the whole article is made up, which is all anyone can glean from the two word vote above. Vagueness isn't helpful here, as with your rebuttal, we aren't talking about a stub sized article here. MickMacNee (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:OR and synthesis. LotLE × talk  00:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I suppose it realy is too much to ask for specific examples from people. It's realy sad that people think they can be so lazy in justifying deletion as if other people can read their minds as to what their perception of the issue is, specifically. If people just want to fly by and make one word judgements without specific examples for people to rebutt/discuss/improve/remove, then that's fine, but the closer needs to take this into account when weighing up the good faith nature of these opinions, and resist the urge to become just another dumb head counting Afd wonk. MickMacNee (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Very well. Take a look at the title of column 3 of the table; it has "possible motivation" and the data in the table is unsourced (the articles wikilinked inline do not discuss the motivation for funding in a sourced way). My problem with this is that nowhere in this article or in the subsidiary articles is there any such assertion of motivation. There are no published statements of motivation, etc. Such speculation is the very definition of what WP:OR seeks to avoid. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2008 (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.