Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Source Philosophy


 * 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Open Source Philosophy
Challenged PROD. Original research; a previous revision of the article said that the term was coined March 23, 2006, so it's clearly not encyclopedic. Catamorphism 20:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT original research, and no sources given.  At best, merge into Open source. --Alan Au 20:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's nothing in this article that could really usefully be added to Open Source. It's just one person's opinions about open source, really, nothing important that's not covered in Open Source. Catamorphism 20:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear original research.Obina 20:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Sandstein 21:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - no original research. &mdash;Whouk (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and no it was not coined in 2006-mar-23. That is nonsense, Catamorphism. I found a discussion on Usenet about "open source philosophy" dating back to the 1998 with a quick Google search, but it didn't allow me past page 48, there must be much earlier ones. --Boborok 02:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The old version of the article - "The term “Open Source Philosophy” (also known as: The Intrinsic Open Source Philosophy) as defined in this way (a seperate yet similar concept to the philosophy of Open Source Culture) was coined by Bhaktivedanta Jolicoeur on March 23, 2006..." This article is about open source philosophy as construed by Bhaktivedanta Jolicoeur (whoever that is). If somebody wanted to write an article about "open source philosophy" in a different sense (though I'm not sure why that doesn't just go under open source), it would be easiest to start over completely, since this article is so inappropriate for Wikipedia. Catamorphism 02:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete redirect to Open source. The essay contains opinions based on examples. If the essay had listed its sources of those opinions, it could have been a good start for a new article. However, there still is no substantial difference from Open source for the basic philosophy. &mdash;  Dz on at as  15:48, 25 March 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.