Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postcardware

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 merge to Shareware. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Postcardware

[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)

Non-notable injoke. Most of the sources go no further than proving that WP:ITEXISTS. A search on Google Books reveals a few passing references eg [1] but none from particularly reliable sources and none which discuss the subject "directly and in detail" as required by WP:SIGCOV. Amisom (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a real thing once. It sits on the historical timeline between QSL cards and shareware, with actual money being transferred. It's a minor thing, but still part of the historical development of the open source movement. I might even have a few of the cards involved - I remember a nice one from a group at MIT who'd taken stock postcards of MIT (the dome) and overprinted them specially as postcardware thankyous. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:ITEXISTS? Amisom (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would match the nomination of WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you're not denying that your !vote is WP:ITEXISTS. Good. NB my nomination is very far from WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE as you'd know if you weren't being deliberately disruptive. Amisom (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:GNG is not a blunt instrument. The likelihood of a book being published on a specific license type (except for something extremely famous like the GPL) is basically zero. Therefore, we must apply more reasonable standards lest we delete an entire category of encyclopedic articles. Modernponderer (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy says that? Amisom (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Amisom, that would be WP:IAR – which, by the way, is not just ordinary policy but a fundamental of Wikipedia. Modernponderer (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Modernponderer: I would question whether having an article on a non-notable subject which is basically just an internet injoke (and a fairly minor one at that) counts as improving the encyclopedia. You could use WP:IAR to argue "keep" for every single AfD if you were so inclined. I could make an article about my wife. I could make an article about my cat. "Hey, but you can't expect a book to have been published about my wife or my cat, so we have to apply a reasonable standard and keep the aritcles anyway." Nonsense. The notability policy is a policy. Amisom (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Amisom, that argument is highly disingenuous. Biographies are an entire genre of books – why could there not be a book about someone's wife if she were indeed notable? In contrast, how many books about the GPL (probably the most notable license in existence) even are there? Other licenses, even entire categories, simply don't stand a chance! The comparison fails completely. Modernponderer (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I could invent a new form of licence myself ("Menorahware: everyone who uses this software has to buy a menorah for me and ship it to me") and create an article about it, relying on WP:IAR, because nobody would ever write a book about any such thing? That would be OK by your reasoning, Modernponderer. The real issue here is that you're deliberately misreading WP:SIGCOV, which says nothing about there having to be "a book about" the subject at all. Amisom (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Amisom: Sigh... it's obviously an example used to illustrate a point – in this case, that applying the exact same notability standards for all types of articles leads to highly undesirable results (certainly from the perspective of Wikipedia readers). Modernponderer (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Modernponderer: It's a silly example and it's meaningless. The general notability guideline is just that, general. The notability policy applies to the whole of Wikipedia. There's no exemption just because you like the article, or topic area, in question. Amisom (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Amisom: First of all, I am not asking for some sort of "exemption", and second, my argument is certainly not based on "liking" something. What I am saying is that the notability policy (like all Wikipedia policies) should be interpreted with common sense, not necessarily even on a case-by-case basis (which would likely lead to inconsistency) but certainly depending on article type. That, in fact, is exactly what WP:IAR (core policy) is all about. Modernponderer (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) ‘Interpreting’ a policy which says “a subject must have received significant coverage in reliable sources” to mean “a subject needn’t have received significant coverage in reliable sources” isn’t common sense. It’s wilful distortion. Also, there is no reason at all, in principle, why this subject needn’t have been covered in reliable sources. The fact that it hasn’t been covered indicates that it’s non-notable. Amisom (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDIC. Wiktionary has this entry, so it is covered there, the appropriate wiki project for this and this answers Modernponderer's point above. Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, for a word to be the subject of an article it must be the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. The guideline also says "As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information". -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sirfurboy: This article is not a dictionary entry, so I'm not sure why you think it can be replaced with one. Nor why you think that could remotely cover my point about notability standards on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, if you agree that it is a valid term, just not notable, your !vote should logically be "redirect" – not "delete". Modernponderer (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the "entire category of encyclopedic articles" that you fear could be deleted are entries that describe specific words (whether they be license types or something else) that do not meet WP:GNG on their own. These are more appropriately defined in wiktionary (where this one can already be found). Cheers. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On your second point: we cannot redirect to wiktionary. I would be happy with redirect to an article on license types where this one is listed, if such an article exists. This would be compliant with WP:CHEAP -- Sirfurboy (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sirfurboy: Per your own link (section WP:POINTWIKT), we most certainly can redirect to Wiktionary. There's even a specific template for that!

In any case, there's significantly more information on these types of pages than a mere dictionary entry could feasibly have. (And a single article "collecting" these types of licenses may well be deleted per WP:NEO before even getting to individual notability concerns.) Modernponderer (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:POINTWIKT, "it, it is possible to effectively "salt" them with a soft redirect to Wiktionary." I am not sure salting is what you want, but would be content with that, yes. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sirfurboy: salting is effectively possible, not required according to that page. The template documentation has a much more precise list of instructions, but does not even mention salting – which would not even make technical sense for a page that actually exists! Modernponderer (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the wiktionary redirect template page[2]: "Do not place it on every possible word. Soft redirects to Wiktionary are to dictionary definitions, and generally Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Only use it when:

There is no scope for a Wikipedia article at this title, and
There is no other Wikipedia page to which this would be an appropriate redirect, and
There is a relevant entry in Wiktionary, and
Readers search for it on Wikipedia."

The first and third condition are apparently satisfied (but you would probably have to retract your 'keep' to agree on point 1). The second one needs exploration, and I see no evidence that the last is true. So maybe no cross wiki link is called for. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sirfurboy: Just to be clear, I am arguing about your position – not mine. My own "keep" opinion remains unchanged as of now. But I'm explaining why your reasoning actually supports "redirect", not "delete".

Regarding the individual points: I am not aware of any current page on Wikipedia that this could be redirected to, and as I wrote above, if one were made it may well be deleted for a somewhat different reason; as for the last point, it absolutely is a valid search term – just look at this very AfD for starters. If anything, the other bolded terms in the article should also be made redirects per your reasoning. Modernponderer (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are confused. I have no objection to redirection, but that still involves deletion of this page per the policy reasons I have cited. Redirection is an adjunct to deletion. I do not propose redirection as I do not find a suitable redirection target, but am clearly not opposed to redirection in principle. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sirfurboy, redirection is absolutely not an "adjunct to deletion"! Deleting a page is an administrator action that leaves nothing behind. In contrast, a redirect can be made by any editor, and (critically) preserves the page history for potential use – including on other projects, like Wiktionary. Modernponderer (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is actually only one of visibility of the history. Deletion also preserves the history, but it is not visible to (determined) editors. If what you are worried about is preservation of the page history, you might wish to nominate a suitable redirect target. I am not sure Wiktionary is ideal. Perhaps shareware as in the suggested merge below? If we can agree on a redirect target, I am happy to change from delete to redirect. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sirfurboy: No, there's also the other difference I pointed out: deletion is an admin action, and therefore a more serious step than a redirect. We don't allow ordinary editors to delete pages for a reason.

"If we can agree" – your opinion shouldn't depend on those of other editors, only on the arguments presented. If you think the proposed target is fine for a redirect, you should change your !vote to that regardless of whether I agree. Modernponderer (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting confused with merge which is a user action initiated through WP:MERGE and delete as a result of AfD in which a redirect is established because the deleted content is a valid search term that can reasonably be resolved to other existing content. Per my response, my view is that this page should be deleted because of WP:NOTDIC and because it does not meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Thus I believe the result of this AfD is that the page should be removed (but optionally replaced with a redirect by the admin closing the thread or any editor who wants to create a new redirect with the page name after the page is deleted). If you want to persuade me that I should, in fact, change my view to keep so as to allow a merge discussion and a merge, then you have gone entirely the wrong way about it. Note that a vote to merge is a vote to keep, as it is not the responsibility of the closing admin to initiate a merge. Instead of telling me what you think my view should be, you should be focusing on why there is content here that goes beyond a dictionary definition and constitutes mergeable content with a suitable merge target. I am open to persuasion if you have policy based arguments that merge is better than delete, but as above, my view based on my analysis of this page and understanding of the policy is that this one meets the deletion criteria. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sirfurboy, the claim that "a vote to merge is a vote to keep" is so "out there" that I'm not even sure how to respond to it. But I'll try anyways: whether or not the outcome is "the responsibility of the closing admin" is a technical matter. The close is fundamentally about judging consensus, no more no less – and a consensus of "merge" is completely different from one of "keep"! (And as a side note, we don't vote here – we !vote. It's a small but significant difference.) Regarding your "delete" opinion, you still haven't presented any argument for what is so blatantly wrong with the history of this page that it actually needs to be deleted (again, an admin action), and could not simply be redirected to a target of your choice. Modernponderer (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Voting merge at AfD: Unlike other deletion processes a merge close does not result in an immediate effect to the article. Someone still has to complete the merge" from Wikipedia:Merge what?. The closing admin does not do this. You can either request a merge and wait up to two years (or more at my last look), or you can do it yourself. Either way, the closing admin does not delete or change the article (well, not unless they are feeling exceptionally generous). -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to shareware. Injoke? I guess that is one way to say WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But this is a verifiable form of shareware license [3], [4], [5] (the last is a blog, but by an expert, so I consider it reliable for the assertion of postcardware). Per our policy WP:ATD, for verifiable material, alternatives to deletion, such as a merger, are preferred over deletion. In this case, shareware is a reasonable target. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could support a merge to shareware. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to shareware. Per Mark viking above. This term has too narrow coverage in reliable sources for a standalone article, but it may be a nice addition to the Shareware article. Certainly a viable search term. Pavlor (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge convinced by @Mark viking:, the term has a narrow coverage in RS about could be a nice addition to Shareware. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge also convinced by Mark viking. Not a standalone topic, but a worthwhile addition to the shareware article. Lepricavark (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2020 (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.