- 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 keep. postdlf ( talk) 15:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- List of freeware ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are literally thousands of items that can fit, many non-notable. The ChampionMan 1234 03:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 03:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Per
WP:NOTDUP, which states "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative". This list is complementary to
Category:Freeware and subcategories therein. If this list becomes too long, it can always be
WP:SPLIT into new articles per type (e.g. image viewers, email, etc.).
NorthAmerica
1000
06:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- But the nominator didn't nominate on the basis of duplicating a category. WP:NOTDUP only negates that rationale for deletion; it isn't itself a keep argument (i.e. "existing category doesn't mean delete the list" isn't the same as "existing category means keep the list"). --— Rhododendrites talk | 07:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Unless someone can point me to a policy saying lists should be deleted if they're too long. Restrict to notable items. (I guess there's an argument that it's hard to verify, but any review should list the price or absence of price.) --
Colapeninsula (
talk)
10:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- WP:SAL talks about lists not being too broad or too narrow. It does not go into much detail and certainly doesn't say "delete if too long," though. Nonetheless, to say the argument that a list topic is too broad isn't a valid argument to delete is to say List of everything is ok as long as it's limited to notable items. --— Rhododendrites talk | 07:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clear inclusion criteria for a notable topic. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per above - Clearly notable & the list is fine. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 22:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree that the topic seems unmaintainably wide, but it's a valid topic for a list. If it gets too big, it can always be split. The biggest problem right now is the lack of citations. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete everyone above have been arguing the list is notable, but why? How is a focus-less list of ALL (notable) freeware programs notable? I am boldy saying it's not, and surely the individual software's notability doesn't make this list notable. It's probably a good time to also note that current list seems to have multiple issues and has been made by someone very subjectively. How do we decide what makes it to that list and what doesn't? Trillian is on that list but it's not even a freeware (it's a freemium). The same is true about Recuva, CCleaner, and Winamp (all on the list, all are FAR from being "freeware"). Just looking over some of the other category, why is IE, Chrome, and FF conveniently left out of the web browsers section? Overall just another poorly crafted unfocused list of no real notability. -- CyberXRef ☎ 15:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep because it is a useful list. Yes, I know that is not a reason for keeping anything, and some editors say it is an argument for deletion. I am free to express my contrary opinion.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 01:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - I'll join the minority here [weakly]. The question is whether the subject is sufficiently narrow to be the subject of a stand-alone list. Places, people, and software are all notable per se, but we don't have
List of places,
List of people, or
List of software because they're far too broad. Instead we have
Lists of places,
Lists of people, and
Lists of software as navigational aids to narrower topics. The question, then, is whether "freeware" is similarly too broad. I say it is. Counting all releases of all software ever produced and factoring in the various gray areas involved in defining such a term as freeware, the number of potential [notable] entries is massive and unmaintainable. --—
Rhododendrites
talk |
06:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is a reasonable argument, but we could always tighten the inclusion criteria if necessary. Also, the difficulty in defining the term is easily offloaded to reliable sources.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
06:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- The lead from our article on freeware:
Freeware (portmanteau of "free" and "software") is software that is available for use at no monetary cost or for an optional fee,[1] but usually (although not necessarily) closed source with one or more restricted usage rights.[2][3][4] Freeware is in contrast to commercial software, which is typically sold for profit, but might be distributed for a business or commercial purpose in the aim to expand the marketshare of a "premium" product. According to the Free Software Foundation, "freeware" is a loosely defined category and it has no clear accepted definition, although FSF says it must be distinguished from free software (libre).[4] Popular examples of closed-source freeware include Adobe Reader, Free Studio and Skype.
- Tightening the inclusion criteria for this list would divorce it from the way we cover the subject, which is intensely wishy-washy (first time I've used those two words together, I think). What about software whose developers make money via a pay-what-you-want (optional) model? What about commercial software later released into the public domain? What about ad-supported software? What about open source software produced by a commercial entity that helps to make them money in indirect ways? Two of the three examples at the end (I'm not familiar with Free Studio) are software available for free...that encourage premium upgrades. Where is the line between freeware and freemium then?
- I'm being annoying now with my rhetorical questions, I know. Just trying to reinforce my point that it's much too broad and ill-defined for its own list. --—
Rhododendrites
talk |
07:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, they're legitimate questions. I had the same thoughts, too. I'm generally more forgiving when it comes to lists than I am when it comes to other types of articles. There are certainly articles in PC magazines and web sites that discuss lists of freeware as a concept, and that satisfies WP:LISTN. For example, we could populate this article with entries from those ubiquitous "top 10 freeware" lists from reliable sources, such as PC World, PC Magazine, and CNET. That means that we don't have to make any decisions about what counts as freeware. They've already done the work for us. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 07:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is a reasonable argument, but we could always tighten the inclusion criteria if necessary. Also, the difficulty in defining the term is easily offloaded to reliable sources.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
06:45, 11 May 2014 (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 keep. postdlf ( talk) 15:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- List of freeware ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are literally thousands of items that can fit, many non-notable. The ChampionMan 1234 03:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 03:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Per
WP:NOTDUP, which states "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative". This list is complementary to
Category:Freeware and subcategories therein. If this list becomes too long, it can always be
WP:SPLIT into new articles per type (e.g. image viewers, email, etc.).
NorthAmerica
1000
06:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- But the nominator didn't nominate on the basis of duplicating a category. WP:NOTDUP only negates that rationale for deletion; it isn't itself a keep argument (i.e. "existing category doesn't mean delete the list" isn't the same as "existing category means keep the list"). --— Rhododendrites talk | 07:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Unless someone can point me to a policy saying lists should be deleted if they're too long. Restrict to notable items. (I guess there's an argument that it's hard to verify, but any review should list the price or absence of price.) --
Colapeninsula (
talk)
10:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- WP:SAL talks about lists not being too broad or too narrow. It does not go into much detail and certainly doesn't say "delete if too long," though. Nonetheless, to say the argument that a list topic is too broad isn't a valid argument to delete is to say List of everything is ok as long as it's limited to notable items. --— Rhododendrites talk | 07:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clear inclusion criteria for a notable topic. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per above - Clearly notable & the list is fine. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 22:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree that the topic seems unmaintainably wide, but it's a valid topic for a list. If it gets too big, it can always be split. The biggest problem right now is the lack of citations. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete everyone above have been arguing the list is notable, but why? How is a focus-less list of ALL (notable) freeware programs notable? I am boldy saying it's not, and surely the individual software's notability doesn't make this list notable. It's probably a good time to also note that current list seems to have multiple issues and has been made by someone very subjectively. How do we decide what makes it to that list and what doesn't? Trillian is on that list but it's not even a freeware (it's a freemium). The same is true about Recuva, CCleaner, and Winamp (all on the list, all are FAR from being "freeware"). Just looking over some of the other category, why is IE, Chrome, and FF conveniently left out of the web browsers section? Overall just another poorly crafted unfocused list of no real notability. -- CyberXRef ☎ 15:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep because it is a useful list. Yes, I know that is not a reason for keeping anything, and some editors say it is an argument for deletion. I am free to express my contrary opinion.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 01:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - I'll join the minority here [weakly]. The question is whether the subject is sufficiently narrow to be the subject of a stand-alone list. Places, people, and software are all notable per se, but we don't have
List of places,
List of people, or
List of software because they're far too broad. Instead we have
Lists of places,
Lists of people, and
Lists of software as navigational aids to narrower topics. The question, then, is whether "freeware" is similarly too broad. I say it is. Counting all releases of all software ever produced and factoring in the various gray areas involved in defining such a term as freeware, the number of potential [notable] entries is massive and unmaintainable. --—
Rhododendrites
talk |
06:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is a reasonable argument, but we could always tighten the inclusion criteria if necessary. Also, the difficulty in defining the term is easily offloaded to reliable sources.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
06:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- The lead from our article on freeware:
Freeware (portmanteau of "free" and "software") is software that is available for use at no monetary cost or for an optional fee,[1] but usually (although not necessarily) closed source with one or more restricted usage rights.[2][3][4] Freeware is in contrast to commercial software, which is typically sold for profit, but might be distributed for a business or commercial purpose in the aim to expand the marketshare of a "premium" product. According to the Free Software Foundation, "freeware" is a loosely defined category and it has no clear accepted definition, although FSF says it must be distinguished from free software (libre).[4] Popular examples of closed-source freeware include Adobe Reader, Free Studio and Skype.
- Tightening the inclusion criteria for this list would divorce it from the way we cover the subject, which is intensely wishy-washy (first time I've used those two words together, I think). What about software whose developers make money via a pay-what-you-want (optional) model? What about commercial software later released into the public domain? What about ad-supported software? What about open source software produced by a commercial entity that helps to make them money in indirect ways? Two of the three examples at the end (I'm not familiar with Free Studio) are software available for free...that encourage premium upgrades. Where is the line between freeware and freemium then?
- I'm being annoying now with my rhetorical questions, I know. Just trying to reinforce my point that it's much too broad and ill-defined for its own list. --—
Rhododendrites
talk |
07:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, they're legitimate questions. I had the same thoughts, too. I'm generally more forgiving when it comes to lists than I am when it comes to other types of articles. There are certainly articles in PC magazines and web sites that discuss lists of freeware as a concept, and that satisfies WP:LISTN. For example, we could populate this article with entries from those ubiquitous "top 10 freeware" lists from reliable sources, such as PC World, PC Magazine, and CNET. That means that we don't have to make any decisions about what counts as freeware. They've already done the work for us. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 07:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is a reasonable argument, but we could always tighten the inclusion criteria if necessary. Also, the difficulty in defining the term is easily offloaded to reliable sources.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
06:45, 11 May 2014 (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.