Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Registerware


 * 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   redirect to some appropriate topic. More discussion may be needed to determine the appropriate target article. Consensus is, however, taht this should not be a separate article given the (lack of) currently available sources.  Sandstein  09:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Registerware

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article does not cite any references and is an original research. Possibly not notable. Fleet Command (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep Comment While the article doesn't have any references for the term, it is a term that is in fairly common use - I'm just not sure how mainstream/official/notable the term actually is though. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  15:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A term in common use? Wikipedia is not dictionary. Articles that merit inclusion in Wikipedia must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If it is a term, transfer it to Wiktionary. Fleet Command (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I meant the above only as a comment - not sure I got "Weak keep" from. I've changed it now -- Boing!   said Zebedee  06:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, never mind. I didn't mean to be biting either; just mentioning it. Anyways, this article could use a source. You see, I myself have never heard "registerware". But I have downloaded trail software a lot. It seems to me that every application needs registration, commercial or otherwise. Times and again, I have escaped registration by downloading them from CNET! Fleet Command (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a further comment - although it's a term that I thought was fairly common (I'm familiar with it myself), I'm surprised that I can't actually find much in the way of references to it. So maybe it is a non-notable neologism -- Boing!   said Zebedee  14:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming the term can be sourced somewhere, merge and redirect to freeware. This is just a minor variation, not enough for a separate article. Even if the term can't be sourced, the variation itself is worth adding to that article, perhaps without insisting on giving it a name. Pcap ping  11:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes... but assumption is a dangerous thing. I've searched prior to proposing; a lot of result came up but nothing that address notability issue. So, good luck trying to find source, although I am not optimistic. Fleet Command (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. First we're not a dictionary.  Second, this neologism seems to be virtually non-existent anyhow and lacks requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 16:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per WP:NEO. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  00:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep . Valid form of software distribution. I would not consider this a dicdef, nor a neologism. -- &oelig; &trade; 10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so this reference and the one above, as well as a couple others I've found from InfoWorld magazine that mention the term "Refisterware" are actually speaking in context to product activation rather than the type of freeware this article is about. But still, at least it's not a neologism! :) Anyways, maybe a better alternative would be to Redirect to Product activation. -- &oelig; &trade; 10:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: In my nomination, I never said this article is neologism. What I said was that this article fails WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:N. Still, since a Redirect verdict resolve these three problems, I will not contest it. Fleet Command (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2010 (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.