Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otherware

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherware

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

Does not cite a reliable source: The article only cites one essay on Beerware which is far from enough for the entire article. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources)
Notability not established: The article does not prove its notability by providing evidences of significant coverage in reliable source. (See General notability guideline)
Written like personal reflections of the author: The article attempts to categorize several methods of software distribution by providing a distorted description of them that contradicts with their description in their own respective article. For example, it describes Careware similar to Donationware, while changes the definition of Donationware to that of a more restrictive one. Most glaring of all, it attempts to fit Abandonware into category. (See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought) Fleet Command (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A quick look at Google books shows this means other things; in one book it means “something besides hardware or software”, for example. I will change my vote if someone finds reliable sources that aren’t Wiki mirrors with this definition. Samboy (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V right now, so the notability discussion doesn't even begin. Pcap ping 01:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be WP:OR essay. LotLE×talk 20:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the above arguments seem to be based primarily on whether or not the term "otherware" itself is in wide use. That is a valid question, certainly, but it isn't the only question that needs to be asked. More importantly, is the concept of software licensed licensed in a "non-standard" way as a whole notable? The answer to that question is certainly "yes", as it is a wide spread phenomenon. If the word "otherware" is problematic, the article can be changed to "Alternate software licensing schemes" or some such, but the concept deserves an entry one way or another. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The first "-ware" in the list is "Abandonware", and it is not a license. We have other articles on software licenses. This article is an original attempt to clasify the "-wares" based on terminology rather than some intrinsic aspects. Pcap ping 03:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precisely. Besides, Abandonware is not the only problematic. Careware, greenware and donationware (per their own articles) are not licenses either. They cannot be enforced.
    In addition, do not forget the other two problems of the article which are valid criteria for deletion.
    Fleet Command (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per FleetCommand, this article really is about a name for a category of software, which is at most very indirectly related to license terms. Abandonware has many citations in the article showing that the term actually is in widespread use, and hence deserves an article. In contrast "Otherware" seems to be a coinage of the article creator, or at most something with rare 3rd party use. Moreover, I think it would not be absurd to call the Abandonware article something like "Unmaintained software", that might only discuss the term Abandonware in the body (mind you, I don't think that's a good idea, but at least the description might be a coherent category). For this article, the only descriptive title would be something utterly unencyclopedic like "Software whose availability status doesn't match well-known categories". "Other" rarely, if ever, forms a meaningful conceptual category for an article. LotLE×talk 09:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I'm not seeing sufficient referencing for this subject to be confirmed as notable. It might make more sense to talk about unusual or unique software licensing at Software license. If the article is to be about the term, then we need to show that the term is in widespread use, which we don't - and if the article is to be about the alternative licenses, then we can discuss those at Software license or in the articles for the respective softwares. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:01, 20 January 2010 (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.