Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disputed FOSS terminology


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

List of disputed FOSS terminology
Basically, this article tries to tell how the Free Software and Open Source people describe various things. Then it adds "unambiguous terms", "neutral terms" and "common terms" - okay, these may be interesting, and certainly true, but could be construed either as either as pushing a PoV, or as an attempt to try to settle the differences between the camps through the article. (Is peace-building PoV?) Anyway, even if you find sources for this stuff (not much sources here!), and remove the things, you're left with short list of stuff that's not really article-worthy, and possibly not even merge-worthy. Certainly pain to expand and possibly better described in the respective articles. Or do we even need to mention this stuff anywhere? wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as confusing OR cruft. Stifle 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a useful summary of many of the disputed terms. Arguments about these terms exist within and across many articles. It's good to draw them all together. As the Free Software terms mostly originate with Richard Stallman, they're easily referenced with the FSF or GNU web sites. The Open Source Software terms can be seen on the Open Source Inititive site. Common terms can be compared with google hits. I can't see how stating a neutral term can be POV. —Pengo 08:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, perhaps "PoV" would be bit strong term for this - think of "siding with". The use of "neutral" and "unambiguous" names should be explained better, as in why they are more neutral and unambiguous, who uses that sort of terms, etc. As for naming, the big naming issues, there's already GNU/Linux naming controversy. My problem is not that we shouldn't explore the issues; my problem is, do we really need yet another article for such minor points? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The aritcle is unsubstantiated, poorly framed ("disputed", "FOSS") and duplicates material found elsewhere on Wikipedia (or available freely from the GNU project!). It may be useful, but utility doesn't make it worth residing at Wikipedia.  The following (written by the article's primary author I presume) cinches it for me, "This list is a guide and is not definitive". --64.223.117.120 06:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Stifle's comments above. --Hetar 08:53, 3 April 2006 (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.