Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WTFPL
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 07:30Z
This is not a license, it is just a joke. A bad one. marcoss 04:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Consider speedy delete. Tonytypoon 04:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are over 23,000 ghits for "WTFPL license" [1], so there is some notability... quesiton is, as it's not a legitimate license, does it's "use" give it notability. If so, this needs re-writing to explain it more clearly. SkierRMH 05:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. To my surprise I found this all over the net - 34,000 Google hits, with a high percentage seeming to reference this particular meaning. Article needs work though. Herostratus 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it:WTFPL has more information and links than the EN version. Might want to check it out... --- RockMFR 05:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The fact that there are so many hits from Google seems to suggest that it is at least partly notable - whether it is notable enough, however, is still questionable. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep There seem to be at least 4 developers who have used this license. There is a license category for it on Freshmeat. It is a bad joke, but it is also a license (says the former Free Software Foundation employee.) --Brianyoumans 07:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep maybe WP:BJAODN? ~ EdBoy[c] 19:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I have added sources, as well as a sourced quote from Bradley Kuhn the first FSF associate, and links to a repository of WTFPL software and art. It's not the MOST notable liscensing format out there, but recognition of validity from the Free Software Foundation and active use tell me it's notable. Wintermut3 19:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per Wintermut3's research. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per Wintermut3 --BenWhitey 03:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Herostratus and Wintermut3. --Kevin Walter 05:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Herostratus and Wintermut3's research Koptor 23:30, 1 January 2007 (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.