Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beerware

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beerware

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

Dubious notability. Minimal sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The "Beerware License" is clearly a real thing, see, for example THIS. Whether it's encyclopedia-worthy or not I will leave to others. Carrite (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty obscure, but it is a perfectly valid license [1] [2] -- RoninBK _{T C} 02:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC) _{Note: This editor also multi-licenses his contributions with the Beerware license, if you're willing to buy me a drink}[reply]
The shed in my back garden is a perfectly valid shed, and, as anyone who has looked at it will attest, clearly a real thing too. But it only becomes Wikipedia material when the world at large has sat down, documented it, and published the knowledge of it, and that knowledge has been acknowledged and entered into the general corpus of human knowledge. Otherwise it remains a perfectly valid, but generally unknown and undocumented and thus not appropriate for a systematization of existing verifiable knowledge, shed.
Can we now focus on the quite proper, deletion-policy-compliant, point that the nominator made, that sources already documenting this subject in depth don't exist; rather than on things that are irrelevant to policy, to our inclusion/exclusion criteria, and to an AFD discussion? Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me to be more succinct. What I meant to say was "Keep here's some more sources." -- RoninBK _{T C} 08:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider merge/redirect. Google Books turns up a number of references[3] in reliable sources to the beerware license as a type of quasi-free license. Examples: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Many of these references do little more than define the term. However, a few of these sources do provide some additional content: they identify Poul-Henning Kamp as a notable proponent[11], and discuss wording, alternatives, and the possible social significance of licenses like this as "social commentary on the length and complexity of the GPL."[12][13]. (One of these sources points to a now-deleted [14] Wikipedia page on otherware for further discussion.) So I think "beerware" is a legitimate search term and a keep on that basis. However, a merge/redirect could be considered, maybe to freeware.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Admrboltz (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient references have been found, and its a standard term that may however puzzle people who have not seen it before, & therefore appropriate to an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC) (sig. added after closure because I fort to add it earlier)[reply]
Keep per sources found above. ^walk victor falk^talk 23:21, 19 January 2011 (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.