Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs released under the GPL

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was unintelligible. I've gone ahead and been WP:BOLD by simply adding ithe members to Category:Free software. Breaking things down by license is pointless, IMO. The list has been deleted as unmaintainable. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)

List of programs released under the GPL
Unmaintainable. If it is done, it will be too huge, which makes it hard to read. Use "What links here" of the GPL article if you want a list of GPLed software minghong 06:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As much as I might disagree, if we're gonna vote to keep the List of unusual personal names, we should keep this, no? --Misterwindupbird 06:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is more suitable as a category, not as an article. List of unusual personal names is not suitable for a category probably because you'd have it hanging around at the bottom of the articles and whatnot. But categorizing GAIM as GPL'd makes perfect sense, and categories automatically act as lists. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk |
 * Keep, but change the title to include 'notable' or 'well-known, otherwise it's misleading james gibbon  13:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Categorise it. --Celestianpower 13:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Categorize it.   &mdash; Edwin Stearns | Talk 13:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jamesgibbon. Kappa 14:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, do not categorize. Rename and/or add a header to indicate that not every single GPL program needs to be on there. But subcategorizing programs by license is overcat'ing. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 22:08, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Unmaintainable. Categorize. Haikupoet 23:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the nominator. This sets a precedent for lists of software released under all the available licenses, and you've only got to look at the image copyrights page to see what a mess that would make. If kept, do not categorify. -Splash 23:59, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Categorise. As a matter of policy every GPLed program with an article on Wikipedia is "notable". Tverbeek 00:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What policy is that? Uncle G 13:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
 * Categorize. This is good information but would be much more suitable in category form. The suggestion that people use What links here on the GPL article is ridiculous; that's non-obvious, additional work, and will give lots of irrelevant results. Nickptar 07:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong categorize. This is why we have categories. &mdash; Phil Welch 14:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Categorical keep, do not categorize. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 08:07 (UTC)
 * Categorize - easier to maintain. -Seth Mahoney June 29, 2005 22:19 (UTC)
 * Categorize. Some pages don't make it clear that they're talking about GPL software.  A list on another page does not make that clear either.  Categorization would.  Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)
 * Categorize - this would be perfectly appropriate as a category. That would also guarantee it only included notable programs. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 16:02 (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.