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The result was withdrawn by nominator after merge + redirect. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boost Software License (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The PROD "con" apparently confused "nom" and "2nd", the stub really isn't notable, and was rather odd on Comparison of free and open-source software licenses in one league with GPL or CC-BY. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Be..anyone (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your idea is right that I removed your prod when I was removing contributions of Jogum7. So the prod removal was collateral damage. At least Be..anyone was not part of the trouble. The article does not make much of a claim of significance apart from "popular license". There is no reference to support this. It seems there is no independent coverage of the topic. It is discussed in forums, and appears to be used by some people. I will respond here if I find coverage in reliable sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot find any substantial coverage. It gets plenty of mentions with one line at most. So this does not meet WP:GNG. SO I suggest a merge and redirect to Boost C++ Libraries. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Andrdema: on the talk page you also suggested a merge to C++ Boost, good idea, make it so. I don't think that a redirect from the license stub is required, but it's hard to judge, so let's keep a redirect after the merge. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Be..anyone:, I have done a nearly direct merge only summarizing a couple sentences. I have fixed the mailing list reference as well. I see nothing of value left to save on the license page feel free to redirect to the license section on the C++ Boost page whenever is most convenient.

      Thanks, redirected, cleaning up here. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as a section into Boost (C++ libraries), as per Graeme Bartlett. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 17:04, 14 March 2015 (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.