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. Most of the delete !votes base their reasoning on OR concerns, which is not a valid policy based argument for deletion but for cleanup, something AFD is not for. As shown by Ihcoyc (talk · contribs), this is indeed a topic that can be a sourced to reliable third-party sources, which means that it's possibly encyclopedic (in accordance to WP:LIST). The counter-argument by Uncle G that there is no Proprietary alternatives to free software article is no argument since noone prohibits such an article to be created - if reliable, third-party sources covered this topic. The POV concerns mentioned by Cybercobra should be addressed though and the list might benefit to be renamed and/or reworked. Again though, this is not a reason for deletion. Since none of the delete !votes were based on policy reasons for deletion (but rather cleanup or discussion), consensus is to keep. Regards SoWhy 12:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free alternatives to proprietary software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article is entirely unreferenced and is original research as it is designed. It functions as promotional advocacy for FOSS. Plenty of the examples (in all columns) are poor choices because it is compiled as OR by any editor who wants to add their favorite software into it. Miami33139 (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Haakon (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep If the wave says Delete I'll be with them, but it can be cleaned up. Really weak keep here. --WngLdr34 (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --DanielPharos (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me explain my vote, since this discussion is clearly not reaching consensus on the issue as a whole. I don't (necessarily) agree with the OR-part, but I do think this article (or at least, the current style) is "promotional advocacy for FOSS". There is only one column for "Proprietary software", while there are three for "Free software". It is asif the 'switch' can only be made from proprietary to free! Also, the very idea of this list is flawed: Comparing software just on free-ness is bad. There's a zillion "Word processing" programs, like Notepad and EDIT.com and some 1980 ones too. What good could this list do in comparison terms? I'd compare important features, and free-ness is (for most people) NOT one of them. And of course, when only comparing free-ness, "free" is always better! So yes, this list is BIASED towards "Free software", and therefore un-wikipedia-worthy IMHO. --DanielPharos (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's certainly a better rationale than per nom but I think all of that can be addressed by improving the article. For that fact, why don't we start by renaming it to something like "Index of software by platform and license"? See Category:Indexes of articles. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would support a full rewrite like that. Since the article would have to be be completely redone, and the title changed, it would basically be a delete and recreate-somewhere-else, I'm unwilling to change my vote unless somebody volunteers to do it. (I'm not familiar (enough) with most software mentioned.) --DanielPharos (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't even think it would require a full rewrite. You would also want to start with this one anyway to preserve the edit history for GFDL purposes. I wouldn't mind assisting with this one but it isn't one I personally want to take on all by myself (I've got several large comparison articles currently on my plate already). --Tothwolf (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rewrite Ah, I see. It's more 'restructuring' than rewriting. I'm not a good writer, so I'm not willing to risk getting burned by such a debated article (this AfD proves it's a sensitive issue). Changing my vote though. --DanielPharos (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Exactly. Other editors have already gone to the trouble to gather up and classify the software currently listed (which going by my past experiences had to have been an enormous amount of work) so it is mainly just a matter of restructuring the presentation of the material. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject is for sure notable, and the rationales for inclusion of programs in the table are the articles themselves (and the categories they belong to). --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be careful not to misplace your notability. The topic of Linux adoption is notable, and software paths like this are used to plan Linux adoption. This list of charts under discussion is not notable and, as written, only serves to advocate for FOSS adoption. It does not need to exist on Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the table as "advocating", it is just...a table. It is not saying that the free alternative is better or that should be preferred. Such tables and comparisons are routinely produced by FOSS advocates for sure, but the list looks objective. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 17:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you say the same if the article ran counter to the prevailing ethos of Wikipedia and was entitled Proprietary alternatives to free software? I suspect that you wouldn't. That the bias in the article's scope matches a widespread bias of Wikipedia editors doesn't mean that the article is unbiased. Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good example, but well, yes, that name could be easily a redirect to this article (or v/v). We can move the article to a more neutral wording, like "Table of software by license type and functionality", or something on these lines, if preferred. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Well-written, but the opening line alone indicates its purpose, an essay filled with original research. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Article title is POV, and article as a whole is essentially a forum post, not an encyclopedic entry. ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The underlying topic would appear to be easily notable.[1][2][3][4] I suspect the chief objection is that this is actually only a large list of proprietary software and free alternatives. If the topic itself is notable and can be expanded, then the list is an obviously relevant addition to it, and could be spun off to a more appropriate title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is neutrality of the article's very scope. See above. This can be fixed by finding a neutral scope. But that hasn't been done, yet. Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couldn't the neutral scope be more prose in the existing article Linux adoption? Miami33139 (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With a second look at the sources provided by Ihcoyc, I really do think better/more prose in Linux adoption is where proponents of this should take their efforts. Particularly that second reference to the essay by the guy at IBM, the essence of his column is that while these FOSS bits of software are alternatives, they are not equivalents - and that concept is a huge gaping hole in this list of charts - but one that would very gracefully be handled by prose at Linux adoption. Miami33139 (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand how the article on Linux adoption can have something to do with a table listing software according to two coordinates (function and type of license), of which most run on non-Linux systems. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:LIST. The list may be redundant, but redundancy in lists can be an asset. It's not meaningless, it has potential organisational value, and it's well presented. Should be retained. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just tons of original research here. JBsupreme (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs to be recast as a list by tweaking the already short lead, and possibly by renaming the page. As a list article, it provides good information that is very useful to readers interested in the topic. The page contains only two external links (in the External links section), so the page really is a list of links to Wikipedia articles and is original research only in the sense that someone has gathered all the information into one page. However, the page is not WP:OR because there is no original thought, analysis or synthesis in the article. WP:OR does not prohibit the compilation of a list; for example, see List of software engineering topics and Index of Windows games (A). I mentioned this at WT:WikiProject Software/Free Software Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but leave open to re-creation in the future. In its present form, this list is unquestionably original research. But there actually are reliable sources that discuss specific free and/or open source alternatives to specific proprietary software applications. This could be a valid list if it was rewritten from the ground up, sticking with what the sources say. *** Crotalus *** 21:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. Per Crotalus, I think this could be sourced. In general, we don't delete articles because their current sucks Hobit (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I stand by my keep; however I remind the closing admin that, in the worst case, there is always the opportunity to incubate articles of potential but problematic at present. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 08:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see how the nom could possibly consider this to be OR. Each entry is clearly either Proprietary software or Free software. Each entry is clearly a specific type of software. There is nothing at all wrong with grouping these in a table by software type and license. The only way something like this could become OR is if it were stated that one particular type of software was better than the other.
  WP:NNC states: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight."
  While the notability guideline may apply to the individual entries listed in these tables for the purposes of determining if each should have it's own standalone article, it does not in any way limit how these articles may be linked and listed elsewhere.
  From where I sit, this article appears to me to be a typical article index with the benefits of listing both proprietary and free software side by side.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The page seems biased not only in its title but its fundamental presentation (why is free software an "alternative" rather than simply an "option" or "equivalent"? Why couldn't the page be about software generally?), and I'm someone who supports FLOSS. This page basically duplicates List of open source software packages except it adds in equivalent proprietary software and a POV How-To spin. The only way I could see this being saved was if it was transformed into some sort of Outline of software or similar on the neutral topic of software generally, with the free-ness of the software merely (but validly) a comparison/organization axis, or if its content was distributed to the individual articles on each type of software (e.g. office suite, database, browser), where lists of software of that type, categorized by licensing, would be appropriate. This is essentially "List of software by genre" with a well-intentioned POV (that I'm sympathetic to), but nonetheless a POV, spin on it. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Less than five lines in the article fit your description of POV, and those lines can easily be deleted or reworked (and the title can be changed). The core of the article is not POV: it is simply a categorized list/index/outline of software, arranged by application type. Examples of its usefulness can be seen by searching for "FTP" or "PDF" or "ZIP" which occur in the article we are discussing, but not in List of open source software packages (and there are many other examples). Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of open source software packages. That's a deficiency in the other article then, a reason to improve it with the content from this article. And the problem is that changing the title to something more neutral would be quite a fundamental shift in the page; which I would support, but it seems unlikely to happen. I suppose I'm saying there should be no article by this title or a similar one, but the content in the article is perfectly salvagable. After re-reading the discussion, I find myself more or less in agreement with DanielPharos. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and refocus per Tothwolf to something like Talk:Free alternatives to proprietary software#Move to Index of software by platform and license?; or delete as POV marketing. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-10-07t09:59z

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.