Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software manufacturing

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 No consensus, after discounting all the invalid votes. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologic term. Main source is article starter's own blog. Seemingly no relevant Google hits. Haakon 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Gronky 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The term is widely used, but the meaning in the article seems much narrower than is normally understood. Ace of Sevens 21:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Ace of Sevens notes the term is in use. If the article is using too narrow a definition then this is good reason to expand the definiton in the article, not delete it, surely. While we are on the subject, IMHO WP is sometimes too heavy handed with deletions. IMHO very very few articles should actually be deleted. Robert Brockway 18:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Robert Brockway, if the article is narrow, expand it. --JpPasnak 19:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User's first non-userpage edit. Haakon 10:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as commonly used the term only means a company that makes software, which doesn't warrant an article. Ace of Sevens 06:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep RE: "Main source is article starter's own blog." This only means the author has drafted the content earlier than posting it on WP. The phrase has been in use in numerous discussions I have been involved in, and it usefully expresses a concept. I don't think this author coined the phrase, but the fact he has used it on his own popular blog more than others does not seem to be case against documenting it on WP. josephpotvin
  • Note: User's first edit. Haakon 10:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What's wrong with an author or intellectual coming up with an idea or concept or phrase and then posting it to wikipedia after posting it to their own blog? Let alone as in the case of this where the author may not be the originator of the idea, but is certainly an active user of a new concept that is accurate and worth sharing. It is ludicrous to delete this entry, and if it were to be deleted I'm confident it would re-appear after a short period as it is indeed a legitimate word/phrase that should be documented and included... and yes, this is my first edit, as it would take something as alarming as this to provoke me to actually register and edit a page on this site... JesseHirsh 12:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note User's first edit. Gronky 13:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Thanks for the self-evident observation Gronky, it's not like I already noted it was my first edit. --JesseHirsh 14:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing wrong with someone coming up with a term, but a newly-and-self-coined term (called a neologism) does not belong in an encyclopedia, be it Wikipedia or any other. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Haakon 15:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: neologism --71.254.6.33 14:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The term software manufacturer has been in wide use for many years (easily many decades) by that subset of the software sector that believe that software can be "manufactured" as if it were a tangible/physical thing. It appears that some persons on Wikipedia incorrectly believe that I coined the term. It is no more a new or self-coined term than saying it is a neologism to refer people that practise "capitalism" by the term "capitalist". If I were to start this process over I would have started a definition for software manufacturer rather than software manufacturing --Russell McOrmond 16:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is a term that is part of the total map of the tautaology(sp?) of software marketing and creation methods. It could use some work to place it fully in that context. the first mover in creating this article is a well known activist in the free/open software movement, and his blog is one of the sites where the meaning of the term may have been clarified, but the standards of wikipedia don't exclude experts from starting articles- even if they are limited to published resources.

The term is NOT a synonym for "proprietary" as there are closed source packages that are never the less distributed at no-charge, or bundled with other things. The method is also similar to the music industry who tends to associate the selling of plastic discs with the selling of music. cmacd 15:44, 12 June 2006 (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.