Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proprietary open source

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 debate was DELETE. The diff in which Quarl merges is [1], but I can't see that material having come from this article in any revision before Quarl's edit. (Also, very small fragments of text are not generally copyrightable anyway.) -Splash^talk 23:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proprietary open source

Neologism/original research.

• Delete. Nominator. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Open-source software, where I have merged a sentence. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:30Z
• Delete, but put a mention of the term and a link to Peren's paper in dual license. scot 15:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Rhobite 17:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Also, article doesn't really make any sense. Haikupoet 04:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, The article doesn't warrant existence even as a redirect. It's not a commonly used term even in the "open source" community, likely because it is ambiguous or with no clear definition if any. --Ashawley 20:59, 24 January 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.