- 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 no consensus. Opinions are split between "keep" and "merge". A decision on which can be taken outside this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Beerware
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Beerware ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable injoke. The fact that it's been used a few times (as demonstrated by the 'sources') does not constitute significant coverage. Amisom ( talk) 16:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per list of sources from the previous nomination. Renomination contains no substantial new arguments and therefore fails
WP:BEFORE.
Modernponderer (
talk) 12:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Which of the
speedy keep criteria apply...? {Clue: none.}
Amisom (
talk) 14:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
-
User:Amisom, that would be the first one:
The nominator [...] fails to advance any argument for deletion
. By the way, "{Clue: none.}" is WP:UNCIVIL; please refrain from using language like that here. Modernponderer ( talk) 17:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)- @
Modernponderer: Oh dear, did you accidentally forget to read the whole of
WP:SK#1? Bless. That criterion is for where what is actually being proposed is something other than deletion, eg. redirection or nomination. I am definitely proposing deletion. The article doesn't meet
WP:GNG, and the previous discussion (nine years ago) reached the wrong conclusion.
Renomination is explicitly allowed here at Wikipedia, especially nine years later, and if you think a rule should be introduced to ban it – or that a new Speedy Keep criterion should be created to cover it – you'll want to propose that at
WP:VPP. In the meantime, don't scream "speedy keep" when you just mean "I don't like this nomination and I wish it wasn't happening", and we'll get along just fine.
Amisom (
talk) 17:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
User:Amisom: Your reading of that criterion is not accurate:
perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging
(emphasis mine). Neither is your understanding of my !vote – I have no objection to renomination per se; I am objecting to a renomination without valid reasoning. And your language has crossed into WP:NPA territory now. Modernponderer ( talk) 17:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)- @ Modernponderer: Nope. You're mistaken. On both counts. Go ahead and file a report at WP:ANI if you're sure you're right though. I wont' stop you. Amisom ( talk) 17:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
User:Amisom: Your reading of that criterion is not accurate:
- @
Modernponderer: Oh dear, did you accidentally forget to read the whole of
WP:SK#1? Bless. That criterion is for where what is actually being proposed is something other than deletion, eg. redirection or nomination. I am definitely proposing deletion. The article doesn't meet
WP:GNG, and the previous discussion (nine years ago) reached the wrong conclusion.
Renomination is explicitly allowed here at Wikipedia, especially nine years later, and if you think a rule should be introduced to ban it – or that a new Speedy Keep criterion should be created to cover it – you'll want to propose that at
WP:VPP. In the meantime, don't scream "speedy keep" when you just mean "I don't like this nomination and I wish it wasn't happening", and we'll get along just fine.
Amisom (
talk) 17:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
-
User:Amisom, that would be the first one:
- Which of the
speedy keep criteria apply...? {Clue: none.}
Amisom (
talk) 14:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- 'Keep' I did a search on 'beerware license' on Google News and I found many discussions of the Beerware licence in various technical journals etc. I believe that's good enough to establish
WP:GNG.
Ross-c (
talk) 09:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
Ross-c: Care to link to any so we can test whether they're
WP:SIGCOV? See also
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES.
Amisom (
talk) 09:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
Amisom: As an example, Linux Insider, Hewlett-Packard, etc. reliable sources. Yes, there are situations where something is mentioned in many sources, but is still not notable. However, after going through a lot of sources, I do not believe that this is the case here.
Ross-c (
talk) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
Ross-c: Read what I said again. I didn't question whether Hewlett-Packard is a reliable source. I made two points: (i) I invited you to link to the pages you say you found, and (ii) I explained that this is so we can assess whether or not they discuss 'beerware'
"directly and in detail". Happy to wait.
Amisom (
talk) 09:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
Amisom: If you want a front page Washington Post article solely about Beerware, then obviously I can't produce one. As I said, I have looked through many resources. E.g. a google search on "Beerware License" on google scholar shows that the terms is discussed in peer reviewed research on open source licensing such as
[1] It's discussed in the bookMakers at Work: Folks Reinventing the World One Object or Idea at a Time by Steven Osborn - searchable on Google books. Listed among other licenses in this paper
[2], Mentioned in 'The Cathedral & the Bazaar - Musings on Linux and Open Source by Eric S. Raymond ' (again available through Google Books, etc. Discussed in Alfred Glossbrenner's Master Guide to Free Software for Ibms and Compatible Computers (again google books), and so on. This is the kind of coverage I found - and yes there are many sources, but many sources does not mean that something is not notable - just that the number of sources by itself does not prove notability. (Which I was aware of before you pointed it out, thank you.) I have not just counted the sources, but looked into what is said about the license, and its use in the world. And, I believe that in this case notability is achieved.
Ross-c (
talk) 10:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @ Ross-c: The Kim and Bae paper doesn't contain "significant coverage"; a one-word mention in a list is clearly not sufficient. The same goes for the Dempsey et al article: the only mention is in this sentence: Reflecting the informal attitude of many contributors, the information here runs the gamut from authors who claim a copyright on their software (rare) to "beerware," "freely distributable," and many variations along these lines. That doesn't count as "directly and in detail" by anyone's standard. Got anything else? (And no, it doesn't need to be a front page from the Post. It just needs to meet the WP:GNG.) Amisom ( talk) 10:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
Amisom: If you want a front page Washington Post article solely about Beerware, then obviously I can't produce one. As I said, I have looked through many resources. E.g. a google search on "Beerware License" on google scholar shows that the terms is discussed in peer reviewed research on open source licensing such as
[1] It's discussed in the bookMakers at Work: Folks Reinventing the World One Object or Idea at a Time by Steven Osborn - searchable on Google books. Listed among other licenses in this paper
[2], Mentioned in 'The Cathedral & the Bazaar - Musings on Linux and Open Source by Eric S. Raymond ' (again available through Google Books, etc. Discussed in Alfred Glossbrenner's Master Guide to Free Software for Ibms and Compatible Computers (again google books), and so on. This is the kind of coverage I found - and yes there are many sources, but many sources does not mean that something is not notable - just that the number of sources by itself does not prove notability. (Which I was aware of before you pointed it out, thank you.) I have not just counted the sources, but looked into what is said about the license, and its use in the world. And, I believe that in this case notability is achieved.
Ross-c (
talk) 10:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
Ross-c: Read what I said again. I didn't question whether Hewlett-Packard is a reliable source. I made two points: (i) I invited you to link to the pages you say you found, and (ii) I explained that this is so we can assess whether or not they discuss 'beerware'
"directly and in detail". Happy to wait.
Amisom (
talk) 09:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
Amisom: As an example, Linux Insider, Hewlett-Packard, etc. reliable sources. Yes, there are situations where something is mentioned in many sources, but is still not notable. However, after going through a lot of sources, I do not believe that this is the case here.
Ross-c (
talk) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
Ross-c: Care to link to any so we can test whether they're
WP:SIGCOV? See also
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES.
Amisom (
talk) 09:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to shareware. I do not agree with the other keeps above that this meets notability requirements for an article in its own right. However it does deserve mention somewhere and the logical place is the shareware page that has a description of licenses. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 21:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep while a merge to shareware would work as a second choice, I believe the sourcing is just about good enough to suggest notability. Lepricavark ( talk) 06:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Likely keep (holding off on a bolded !vote until I can find sources). I'm not in the programming world, but even I've seen this around for years and it doesn't quite seem like a good fit for merge in shareware. TBD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:59, 15 February 2020 (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.
- 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 no consensus. Opinions are split between "keep" and "merge". A decision on which can be taken outside this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Beerware
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Beerware ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable injoke. The fact that it's been used a few times (as demonstrated by the 'sources') does not constitute significant coverage. Amisom ( talk) 16:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per list of sources from the previous nomination. Renomination contains no substantial new arguments and therefore fails
WP:BEFORE.
Modernponderer (
talk) 12:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Which of the
speedy keep criteria apply...? {Clue: none.}
Amisom (
talk) 14:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
-
User:Amisom, that would be the first one:
The nominator [...] fails to advance any argument for deletion
. By the way, "{Clue: none.}" is WP:UNCIVIL; please refrain from using language like that here. Modernponderer ( talk) 17:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)- @
Modernponderer: Oh dear, did you accidentally forget to read the whole of
WP:SK#1? Bless. That criterion is for where what is actually being proposed is something other than deletion, eg. redirection or nomination. I am definitely proposing deletion. The article doesn't meet
WP:GNG, and the previous discussion (nine years ago) reached the wrong conclusion.
Renomination is explicitly allowed here at Wikipedia, especially nine years later, and if you think a rule should be introduced to ban it – or that a new Speedy Keep criterion should be created to cover it – you'll want to propose that at
WP:VPP. In the meantime, don't scream "speedy keep" when you just mean "I don't like this nomination and I wish it wasn't happening", and we'll get along just fine.
Amisom (
talk) 17:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
User:Amisom: Your reading of that criterion is not accurate:
perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging
(emphasis mine). Neither is your understanding of my !vote – I have no objection to renomination per se; I am objecting to a renomination without valid reasoning. And your language has crossed into WP:NPA territory now. Modernponderer ( talk) 17:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)- @ Modernponderer: Nope. You're mistaken. On both counts. Go ahead and file a report at WP:ANI if you're sure you're right though. I wont' stop you. Amisom ( talk) 17:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
User:Amisom: Your reading of that criterion is not accurate:
- @
Modernponderer: Oh dear, did you accidentally forget to read the whole of
WP:SK#1? Bless. That criterion is for where what is actually being proposed is something other than deletion, eg. redirection or nomination. I am definitely proposing deletion. The article doesn't meet
WP:GNG, and the previous discussion (nine years ago) reached the wrong conclusion.
Renomination is explicitly allowed here at Wikipedia, especially nine years later, and if you think a rule should be introduced to ban it – or that a new Speedy Keep criterion should be created to cover it – you'll want to propose that at
WP:VPP. In the meantime, don't scream "speedy keep" when you just mean "I don't like this nomination and I wish it wasn't happening", and we'll get along just fine.
Amisom (
talk) 17:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
-
User:Amisom, that would be the first one:
- Which of the
speedy keep criteria apply...? {Clue: none.}
Amisom (
talk) 14:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- 'Keep' I did a search on 'beerware license' on Google News and I found many discussions of the Beerware licence in various technical journals etc. I believe that's good enough to establish
WP:GNG.
Ross-c (
talk) 09:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
Ross-c: Care to link to any so we can test whether they're
WP:SIGCOV? See also
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES.
Amisom (
talk) 09:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
Amisom: As an example, Linux Insider, Hewlett-Packard, etc. reliable sources. Yes, there are situations where something is mentioned in many sources, but is still not notable. However, after going through a lot of sources, I do not believe that this is the case here.
Ross-c (
talk) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
Ross-c: Read what I said again. I didn't question whether Hewlett-Packard is a reliable source. I made two points: (i) I invited you to link to the pages you say you found, and (ii) I explained that this is so we can assess whether or not they discuss 'beerware'
"directly and in detail". Happy to wait.
Amisom (
talk) 09:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
Amisom: If you want a front page Washington Post article solely about Beerware, then obviously I can't produce one. As I said, I have looked through many resources. E.g. a google search on "Beerware License" on google scholar shows that the terms is discussed in peer reviewed research on open source licensing such as
[1] It's discussed in the bookMakers at Work: Folks Reinventing the World One Object or Idea at a Time by Steven Osborn - searchable on Google books. Listed among other licenses in this paper
[2], Mentioned in 'The Cathedral & the Bazaar - Musings on Linux and Open Source by Eric S. Raymond ' (again available through Google Books, etc. Discussed in Alfred Glossbrenner's Master Guide to Free Software for Ibms and Compatible Computers (again google books), and so on. This is the kind of coverage I found - and yes there are many sources, but many sources does not mean that something is not notable - just that the number of sources by itself does not prove notability. (Which I was aware of before you pointed it out, thank you.) I have not just counted the sources, but looked into what is said about the license, and its use in the world. And, I believe that in this case notability is achieved.
Ross-c (
talk) 10:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @ Ross-c: The Kim and Bae paper doesn't contain "significant coverage"; a one-word mention in a list is clearly not sufficient. The same goes for the Dempsey et al article: the only mention is in this sentence: Reflecting the informal attitude of many contributors, the information here runs the gamut from authors who claim a copyright on their software (rare) to "beerware," "freely distributable," and many variations along these lines. That doesn't count as "directly and in detail" by anyone's standard. Got anything else? (And no, it doesn't need to be a front page from the Post. It just needs to meet the WP:GNG.) Amisom ( talk) 10:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
Amisom: If you want a front page Washington Post article solely about Beerware, then obviously I can't produce one. As I said, I have looked through many resources. E.g. a google search on "Beerware License" on google scholar shows that the terms is discussed in peer reviewed research on open source licensing such as
[1] It's discussed in the bookMakers at Work: Folks Reinventing the World One Object or Idea at a Time by Steven Osborn - searchable on Google books. Listed among other licenses in this paper
[2], Mentioned in 'The Cathedral & the Bazaar - Musings on Linux and Open Source by Eric S. Raymond ' (again available through Google Books, etc. Discussed in Alfred Glossbrenner's Master Guide to Free Software for Ibms and Compatible Computers (again google books), and so on. This is the kind of coverage I found - and yes there are many sources, but many sources does not mean that something is not notable - just that the number of sources by itself does not prove notability. (Which I was aware of before you pointed it out, thank you.) I have not just counted the sources, but looked into what is said about the license, and its use in the world. And, I believe that in this case notability is achieved.
Ross-c (
talk) 10:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
Ross-c: Read what I said again. I didn't question whether Hewlett-Packard is a reliable source. I made two points: (i) I invited you to link to the pages you say you found, and (ii) I explained that this is so we can assess whether or not they discuss 'beerware'
"directly and in detail". Happy to wait.
Amisom (
talk) 09:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
Amisom: As an example, Linux Insider, Hewlett-Packard, etc. reliable sources. Yes, there are situations where something is mentioned in many sources, but is still not notable. However, after going through a lot of sources, I do not believe that this is the case here.
Ross-c (
talk) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @
Ross-c: Care to link to any so we can test whether they're
WP:SIGCOV? See also
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES.
Amisom (
talk) 09:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to shareware. I do not agree with the other keeps above that this meets notability requirements for an article in its own right. However it does deserve mention somewhere and the logical place is the shareware page that has a description of licenses. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 21:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep while a merge to shareware would work as a second choice, I believe the sourcing is just about good enough to suggest notability. Lepricavark ( talk) 06:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Likely keep (holding off on a bolded !vote until I can find sources). I'm not in the programming world, but even I've seen this around for years and it doesn't quite seem like a good fit for merge in shareware. TBD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:59, 15 February 2020 (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.