Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community source

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 delete. ✗plicit 10:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community source

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is a mess and I'm not sure if there is anything worth salvaging here. It is actually about two completely different things. It starts out talking about a particular approach to open source software development used in higher education – the elements of which aren't actually unique to the higher education sector. I'm not convinced that concept is notable enough for its own article, and the extent to which this article covers it seems rather excessive in proportion to its notability – although possibly it could be briefly mentioned in some article about open source software development models or software in higher education.

The rest of the page is essentially just a double of source-available software. Some source-available software licenses have had the phrase "Community License" in their name, but that doesn't mark out some distinctive category of source-available software licenses–it is just a phrase which has attracted some people.

Having an article about two unrelated uses of the same phrase (in the same field of endeavour) is likely to mislead readers into thinking one has something to do with the other. Mr248 (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: If you look at Google Scholar, one finds quite a few journal articles and conference papers about this. However, they are mostly from 10 years ago, and you'll notice a lot of them are all authored by the same researcher. I think it is easy for an academic to come up with a label for some variation on the open source model, and manage to get a burst of papers published on it, and even get a few other academics to publish on it too. That doesn't mean that variation needs its whole own article. It might be notable enough for a brief mention in another article, but still doesn't seem sufficiently distinctive from the main topic to warrant an entire article to itself. Also, given the two completely unrelated ways this term "community source" is used (on the one hand, as a particular way of doing open source software, or even just as a synonym for open source software; on the other hand, s a synonym for source-available software), trying to determine its notability by searching produces a mixture of sources about those two unrelated meanings of the term. Mr248 (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It looks like a quirky phrase that has not received common use outside of single researcher and colleagues. --mikeu ^talk 16:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very WP:TNT, like the nom said. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.