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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasno consensus. Leaning towards keep.Stifle (talk)08:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTFPL (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable software license, used on only a handful of projects - most of which are minor coding projects by the license author. Only secondary source is a post to debian-legal several years ago inquiring as to its suitability as a DFSG-approved license; there are no reliable secondary sources. External coverage appears to consist entirely of user-generated content or blog posts, from a look at Google. Previous AfD basically predicated the keep on the one source which says that the FSF has looked at it, but given that the FSF's job is to look at licenses this is hardly a stand-out feature.Chris Cunningham (not at work) -talk09:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Verified but not shown to be notable by reliable sources. Include in the author's article if absolutely necessary.gnfnrf (talk)13:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep About48k ghits now,listed on FSF license page, featured onprominent software blogs, several Linux distributions, Gentoo1,2;Fedora ship software licensed under the wtfpl, license listing onfreshmeat. In the ghits you see people discussing it1,2,3,4,5; licensing blogs or artwork, about 10 - 15 coders using the wtfpl,1,2.—Precedingunsigned comment added byFafnir665 (talk •contribs)18:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not one of those links points to a discussion of the license or indeed anything resembling substantial content. Several are automatically generated, most of the rest are user-generated aggregations, a couple are forums, one is a blog post and one is an SVG file (wtf). "Featured in several Linux distributions" isn't a threshold for notability, which is why we don't have an article for every keyboard layout the X Window System is distributed with.Chris Cunningham (not at work) -talk20:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Look, its obvious you didn't even follow more than, maybe, one of the links. X-Windows layouts are irrelevant to this discussion. SVG "file" is a wikipedia link, follow it to an image on wikipedia with the wtfpl. None are automatically generated. KthnxFafnir665 (talk)01:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  PS. You didn't follow that text block properly. "Featured on blogs," "Software included with licenses in several distros," were separate statements in a list, follow the commas and the semi-colons. Here is a link to a page onlogical fallacies for you. Maybe it can help you better form an argument about facts rather than attacking my credibility?Fafnir665 (talk)02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  My issue was with the quality of the references, not your credibility. I've looked through each of those links and it doesn't matter how many discrete instances of software under the WTFPL you find if there are no reliable (i.e. not forum or blog) secondary sources which have discussed it. Right now, nothing more of that type exists with the exception of the FSF ruling, which as I've pointed out isn't as exceptional as was made out in the first AfD.Chris Cunningham (not at work) -talk08:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  FSF link is not to an e-mail about the WTFPL, it is to the inclusion of it on their license page, which was never discussed in the previous AfD.Fafnir665 (talk)13:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Here, its also listed on theFedora Project Licensing page as a "Good License"Fafnir665 (talk)13:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The Fedora link is a wiki, and the FSF one is a trivial reference on a long page of licenses. As I said before, the FSF's job is evaluating licenses, so individual instances being stamped as acceptable is hardly a significant claim of notability.Chris Cunningham (not at work) -talk13:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Fedora page was created by fedora manager, member of the board, and maintainer of a large number of packages. Check the history. Second is your personal opinion not an objective statement.Fafnir665 (talk)15:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Fafnir665.Mike Linksvayer (talk)18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete my heart wants to keep this, because it makes me laugh. My brain says it isn't really notable. --SJK (talk)07:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge somewhere? Being listed by fsf.org gives it a nonzero amount of notability, but there's really not much else to add about this license. If there is aList of free software licenses or such, perhaps it can be merged and redirected. --Itub (talk)08:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It was suggested on the talk page, but someone decided it should be deleted insteadFafnir665 (talk)13:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is notable, the newcreative commons CC Zero[1] is a follow up on this license, common sense overwikilaw, bothDebian (Windowmaker) andUbuntu are sharp on included licenses, by accepting the license and including it in the Distro, they confirm notability.Mion (talk)09:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any evidence whatsoever that the Creative Commons license you linked is a descendent of the WTFPL, or is that conjecture on your part? Inclusion in Debian is no threshold for notability.Chris Cunningham (not at work) -talk10:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This pipermail from creative commons in Poland, with a WTFPL link[2], for the latter, thats your personal opinion, which i dont share.Mion (talk)10:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Fafnir665 (talk)13:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that email is incomprehensible to me, it does not appear to contain any evidence of the sort.Chris Cunningham (not at work) -talk11:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree that theWTFPL sofar the only license is thatcompatible is withCC Zero  ?

• Keep - Notable license with multiple independent third-party sources. Deletion would harm the encyclopedia. -FrankTobia (talk)05:16, 22 September 2008 (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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.