598:). What about software whose developers make money via a pay-what-you-want (optional) model? What about commercial software later released into the public domain? What about ad-supported software? What about open source software produced by a commercial entity that helps to make them money in indirect ways? Two of the three examples at the end (I'm not familiar with Free Studio) are software available for free...that encourage premium upgrades. Where is the line between freeware and freemium then?
589:
profit, but might be distributed for a business or commercial purpose in the aim to expand the marketshare of a "premium" product. According to the Free
Software Foundation, "freeware" is a loosely defined category and it has no clear accepted definition, although FSF says it must be distinguished from free software (libre). Popular examples of closed-source freeware include Adobe Reader, Free Studio and Skype.
276:, which states "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative". This list is complementary to
550:
as navigational aids to narrower topics. The question, then, is whether "freeware" is similarly too broad. I say it is. Counting all releases of all software ever produced and factoring in the various gray areas involved in defining such a term as freeware, the number of potential entries is massive
588:
Freeware (portmanteau of "free" and "software") is software that is available for use at no monetary cost or for an optional fee, but usually (although not necessarily) closed source with one or more restricted usage rights. Freeware is in contrast to commercial software, which is typically sold for
615:
No, they're legitimate questions. I had the same thoughts, too. I'm generally more forgiving when it comes to lists than I am when it comes to other types of articles. There are certainly articles in PC magazines and web sites that discuss lists of freeware as a concept, and that satisfies
479:(all on the list, all are FAR from being "freeware"). Just looking over some of the other category, why is IE, Chrome, and FF conveniently left out of the web browsers section? Overall just another poorly crafted unfocused list of no real notability. --
336:
talks about lists not being too broad or too narrow. It does not go into much detail and certainly doesn't say "delete if too long," though. Nonetheless, to say the argument that a list topic is too broad isn't a valid argument to delete is to say
318:
Unless someone can point me to a policy saying lists should be deleted if they're too long. Restrict to notable items. (I guess there's an argument that it's hard to verify, but any review should list the price or absence of price.)
462:
this list notable. It's probably a good time to also note that current list seems to have multiple issues and has been made by someone very subjectively. How do we decide what makes it to that list and what doesn't?
199:
92:
87:
457:
everyone above have been arguing the list is notable, but why? How is a focus-less list of ALL (notable) freeware programs notable? I am boldy saying it's not, and surely the individual software's notability
97:
526:- I'll join the minority here . The question is whether the subject is sufficiently narrow to be the subject of a stand-alone list. Places, people, and software are all notable per se, but we don't have
297:
only negates that rationale for deletion; it isn't itself a keep argument (i.e. "existing category doesn't mean delete the list" isn't the same as "existing category means keep the list"). --—
438:. I agree that the topic seems unmaintainably wide, but it's a valid topic for a list. If it gets too big, it can always be split. The biggest problem right now is the lack of citations.
565:
This is a reasonable argument, but we could always tighten the inclusion criteria if necessary. Also, the difficulty in defining the term is easily offloaded to reliable sources.
507:
because it is a useful list. Yes, I know that is not a reason for keeping anything, and some editors say it is an argument for deletion. I am free to express my contrary opinion.--
82:
193:
248:
159:
152:
415:
601:
I'm being annoying now with my rhetorical questions, I know. Just trying to reinforce my point that it's much too broad and ill-defined for its own list. --—
258:
237:
125:
120:
620:. For example, we could populate this article with entries from those ubiquitous "top 10 freeware" lists from reliable sources, such as
129:
17:
645:
610:
594:
Tightening the inclusion criteria for this list would divorce it from the way we cover the subject, which is intensely wishy-washy (
574:
560:
516:
497:
447:
427:
406:
370:
350:
328:
306:
288:
261:
240:
112:
65:
214:
636:. That means that we don't have to make any decisions about what counts as freeware. They've already done the work for us.
181:
255:
234:
670:
40:
641:
570:
443:
175:
171:
324:
252:
231:
459:
666:
637:
566:
439:
285:
221:
116:
36:
603:
553:
512:
464:
397:
343:
299:
207:
294:
273:
338:
320:
617:
281:
547:
423:
277:
187:
60:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
665:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
535:
108:
71:
333:
543:
539:
531:
527:
508:
480:
467:
is on that list but it's not even a freeware (it's a freemium). The same is true about
381:
419:
364:
54:
146:
628:
280:
and subcategories therein. If this list becomes too long, it can always be
293:
But the nominator didn't nominate on the basis of duplicating a category.
622:
580:
472:
230:
There are literally thousands of items that can fit, many non-notable.
476:
468:
659:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
633:
284:
into new articles per type (e.g. image viewers, email, etc.).
142:
138:
134:
93:
Articles for deletion/List of freeware (3rd nomination)
88:
Articles for deletion/List of freeware (2nd nomination)
596:
first time I've used those two words together, I think
206:
98:
Articles for deletion/List of freeware type designers
380:
per above - Clearly notable & the list is fine.
341:
is ok as long as it's limited to notable items. --—
220:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
673:). No further edits should be made to this page.
538:because they're far too broad. Instead we have
362:Clear inclusion criteria for a notable topic.
249:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
414:Note: This debate has been included in the
247:Note: This debate has been included in the
416:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
413:
246:
80:
586:
83:Articles for deletion/List of freeware
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
78:
24:
1:
579:The lead from our article on
690:
662:Please do not modify it.
646:07:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
611:07:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
575:06:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
561:06:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
551:and unmaintainable. --—
517:01:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
351:07:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
307:07:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
66:15:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
498:15:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
448:20:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
428:22:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
407:22:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
371:11:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
329:10:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
289:06:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
262:03:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
241:03:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
77:AfDs for this article:
339:List of everything
48:The result was
597:
590:
548:Lists of software
430:
278:Category:Freeware
264:
681:
664:
638:NinjaRobotPirate
608:
606:
595:
587:
567:NinjaRobotPirate
558:
556:
536:List of software
495:
492:
489:
486:
483:
440:NinjaRobotPirate
404:
395:
388:
367:
348:
346:
304:
302:
225:
224:
210:
162:
150:
132:
109:List of freeware
72:List of freeware
34:
689:
688:
684:
683:
682:
680:
679:
678:
677:
671:deletion review
660:
604:
602:
554:
552:
544:Lists of people
540:Lists of places
493:
490:
487:
484:
481:
398:
389:
382:
365:
344:
342:
300:
298:
167:
158:
123:
107:
104:
102:
75:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
687:
685:
676:
675:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
605:Rhododendrites
599:
592:
584:
555:Rhododendrites
532:List of people
528:List of places
520:
519:
501:
500:
451:
450:
432:
431:
410:
409:
374:
373:
356:
355:
354:
353:
345:Rhododendrites
312:
311:
310:
309:
301:Rhododendrites
266:
265:
228:
227:
164:
103:
101:
100:
95:
90:
85:
79:
76:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
686:
674:
672:
668:
663:
657:
656:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
630:
625:
624:
619:
614:
613:
612:
607:
600:
593:
591:
585:
582:
578:
577:
576:
572:
568:
564:
563:
562:
557:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
522:
521:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
502:
499:
496:
478:
474:
470:
466:
461:
456:
453:
452:
449:
445:
441:
437:
434:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
412:
411:
408:
405:
403:
402:
401:→Talk to me!→
396:
394:
393:
387:
386:
379:
376:
375:
372:
369:
368:
361:
358:
357:
352:
347:
340:
335:
332:
331:
330:
326:
322:
321:Colapeninsula
317:
314:
313:
308:
303:
296:
292:
291:
290:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
268:
267:
263:
260:
257:
254:
250:
245:
244:
243:
242:
239:
236:
233:
223:
219:
216:
213:
209:
205:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
173:
170:
169:Find sources:
165:
161:
157:
154:
148:
144:
140:
136:
131:
127:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
105:
99:
96:
94:
91:
89:
86:
84:
81:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
62:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
661:
658:
627:
621:
523:
504:
460:doesn't make
454:
435:
400:
399:
391:
390:
384:
383:
377:
363:
359:
315:
286:NorthAmerica
269:
229:
217:
211:
203:
196:
190:
184:
178:
168:
155:
59:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
629:PC Magazine
524:Weak Delete
256:ChampionMan
235:ChampionMan
194:free images
667:talk page
509:DThomsen8
420:• Gene93k
295:WP:NOTDUP
274:WP:NOTDUP
37:talk page
669:or in a
623:PC World
618:WP:LISTN
581:freeware
473:CCleaner
465:Trillian
282:WP:SPLIT
153:View log
39:or in a
366:Lugnuts
200:WP refs
188:scholar
126:protect
121:history
55:postdlf
632:, and
546:, and
477:Winamp
475:, and
469:Recuva
455:Delete
385:→Davey
334:WP:SAL
272:- Per
172:Google
130:delete
534:, or
392:2010→
215:JSTOR
176:books
160:Stats
147:views
139:watch
135:links
16:<
642:talk
634:CNET
571:talk
513:talk
505:Keep
444:talk
436:Keep
424:talk
378:Keep
360:Keep
325:talk
316:Keep
270:Keep
259:1234
238:1234
208:FENS
182:news
143:logs
117:talk
113:edit
61:talk
50:keep
609:|
559:|
349:|
305:|
253:The
232:The
222:TWL
151:– (
644:)
626:,
573:)
542:,
530:,
515:)
494:ef
491:XR
485:be
482:Cy
471:,
446:)
426:)
418:.
327:)
319:--
251:.
202:)
145:|
141:|
137:|
133:|
128:|
124:|
119:|
115:|
64:)
52:.
640:(
583::
569:(
511:(
488:r
442:(
422:(
323:(
226:)
218:·
212:·
204:·
197:·
191:·
185:·
179:·
174:(
166:(
163:)
156:·
149:)
111:(
58:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.