Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sybase Open Watcom Public License

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 of the discussion was article made saving throw; kept. Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sybase Open Watcom Public License

obvious factual errors, otherwise no content except for marketing ploys and excerpts from the license KiloByte 20:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but needs editing, I think. The company is notable, the license itself seems notable (38K Google hits for the exact phrase) and it's a partnership between Sybase and open source. --ColourBurst 00:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are countless different intellectual property licensing schemes. We shouldn't create an article for each of them. Just because the company is notable and the product is notable, that doesn't mean every little aspect of the product is notable. Unless there's something special about this particular license, it's just WP:NOT. If Sybase's collaboration with the open source community is important, list that in the Sybase article. Dgies 07:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: if considering this, people may wish to look at the other articles by the same user. --Pak21 08:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It would probably be a good idea to coalesce all these articles into a single table, stating items like stances of OSI, FSF and Debian, GPL compatibility and so on. Perhaps as a rework of the list of software licenses article, basing on existing work like the list maintained by FSF. --KiloByte 10:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep although with no prejudice against merge to an appropriate list. Should certainly stay around as a redirect if nothing else. --Pak21 12:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard purged the article and started anew. The new stub already includes more information than the old version, and doesn't claim that the license is GPL compatible. (note: newbie here. What's the procedure in AfD when the article is restarted?) --KiloByte 08:08, 8 July 2006 (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.