Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proprietary software

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 a keep. Other than the nominator, there was very strong consensus . TLA (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proprietary software

[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)

This article doesn't really seem to have a subject at all, let alone a notable one; 'proprietary software' is just, 'any software that isn't Free and Open Source', and the FOSS article already has a section comparing it to proprietary software. This article is really just 'The benefits of FOSS' but from the other direction.

It's also a sort of vague rambling essay about all the things that are wrong with 'proprietary software' structured like a Wikipedia article. We already have Commercial Software and Free and open-source software this article is trying to fill a gap between them that doesn't exist. JeffUK 16:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,Redirect or Merge Not sure, but this article describes a somewhat common practice in the industry, although you are right it needs work.

Geardona (talk to me?) 17:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Computing, and Software. Owen× ☎ 19:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a key, frequently used term, with notability more than established by the cited sources. I find the nomination odd. Owen× ☎ 19:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'Proprietary software' is frequently used, but that doesn't mean it's a subject that meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article ('Bad Software', 'Good Software' etc. are used much more frequently!) Per WP:NAD, not every term requires an article. JeffUK 13:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of WP:NAD. The current article is far more than a DICDEF. And as I said, the cited sources provide SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per GNG. Owen× ☎ 14:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is sourcing to support this as a notable topic. Many things are defined by negation; vacuum is an absence of matter, starvation is an absence of nutrients, evil is an absence of good. The existence of proprietary software is, fortunately for the intellectual development of human civilization, defined as an absence of free licensing rather than the other way around (i.e. free software being a rare novelty consisting merely a type of software lacking intrusive copyright encumbrances). But this does not mean that the distinction between the two can be reduced to a dictionary definition. jp×g 🗯️ 19:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There are far too many of these sources, so I will directly address the deletion nomination's rationale by listing a few of the academic sources that describe proprietary software in detail without focusing on free or open-source software:
1. Winarski, Tyson; Nguyen, Tuan Ahn (4–5 February 2002). "Protecting Proprietary Software in the Petroleum Industry". Proceedings of ETCE2002. ASME 2002 Engineering Technology Conference on Energy. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. pp. 293–295. doi:10.1115/ETCE2002/COMP-29061 – via ResearchGate.
2. Chen, Yuanyuan; Bharadwaj, Anandhi; Goh, Khim-Yong (1 January 2017). "An Empirical Analysis of Intellectual Property Rights Sharing in Software Development Outsourcing". Management Information Systems Quarterly. 41 (1). University of Minnesota: 131–161. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.1.07.
3. Franz, Charles R.; Wilkins, Susan J.; Bower, Jonathan C. (1 January 1981). "A critical review of proprietary software protection". Information & Management. 4 (2). Elsevier: 55–69. doi:10.1016/0378-7206(81)90002-1. ISSN 0378-7206.
4. Raysman, Richard (1977–1978). "Protection of Proprietary Software in the Computer Industry: Trade Secrets as an Effective Method". Jurimetrics. 18. American Bar Association: 335 – via HeinOnline.
5. Fromholz, Haley J. (December 1973). "Legal protection of proprietary software". Computer. 6 (12). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: 27–32. doi:10.1109/MC.1973.6540215. S2CID 34235452.
  As these sources show, proprietary software clearly does exist as a concept that is distinct from commercial software and free and open-source software. (As the Commercial software article explains, since free and open-source software can also be commercialized, commercial software is not the same thing as proprietary software.) — Newslinger talk 08:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BATHWATER nom. Current sourcing passes GNG, per others. Widefox; talk 19:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
strong Keep Have you heard of the term freeware? Jothefiredragon (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2024 (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.