Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DELTREE

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 no consensus. That's overall, after the rewrite we've seen only keep opinions. Sandstein 16:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELTREE

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

This article does not establish its notability by showing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. Codename Lisa (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles on individual OS commands do not belong on Wikipedia, and this command is not in any way particularly notable.SJK (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous books which establish the notability of the topic - see Windows Administration at the Command Line, for example. A general prohibition of content about computer commands does not seem sensible; it would be like forbidding content about mathematical operations and symbols. If the current content of the page is not liked then there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with directory structure. Andrew (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do show us those numerous books. This is only one book, its coverage is two paragraphs and the coverage is not significant; it is circumstantial and brief. So, I guess you said "delete" only haven't realized it yet. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very bad idea to have articles on individual commands. Besides that, I don't see any evidence that this is notable. A brief how-to mention in a manual does not establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no pretense to a deletion argument here. In addition, the nomination shows neither evidence of WP:ATD nor components of WP:BEFORE. Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; consider partial merge. Maybe this article along with rmdir, rm (Unix) and del (command) can be merged into file deletion to diversify its contents but the merge cannot be full because of WP:NOTMANUAL policy. Or maybe one can transwiki them all to Wikibooks. Fleet Command (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep so that it may be merged to File deletion. If the article were deleted, it would be harder to do a merge. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 05:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep—Generally speaking, standard command-line utilities have a presumption of notability. At some point in history people noticed there was a problem that wasn't getting solved well enough with existing techniques, several attempts were usually made at a solution, a solution becomes standardized, and as the world moves on the solution can become obsolete. That story is what ought to be reflected in the article, and for recent, well-documented operating systems like MS-DOS, WP:RS is not all that difficult to find. The story here is pretty straightforward: MSDOS introduced subdirectories without thinking through how they would be used, people complained about the problem until competing products started implementing solutions, Microsoft took notice and eventually (MSDOS 6!) added their own solution, and it got dropped as part of the transition away from MSDOS-based operating systems. I didn't know any of that 30 minutes ago, btw. I need to track down a few older cites and I'll then set about rewriting the article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of notability isn't required in Wikipedia. Wikipedia notability guideline says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. Sorry. I think you shouldn't waste time on this one. Fleet Command (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update—I've rewritten the article. Quotes from the sources I used are on the talk page. There's more WP:RS to add, particularly with the security implications, but I think the current state is enough to get out of AfD. Codename Lisa, SJK, Andrew, NinjaRobotPirate, Unscintillating, Fleet Command: please take a look and let me know what else you think is required. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. Does not, in its present form, look anything like a manual. James500 (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I dunno. I think there's enough to good content that it could be merged to an article on the history of DOS, but I'm still reluctant to keep the article. It's a well-written and referenced article, but it still falls a bit short of what I would like to see as far as significant coverage. One could certainly argue that some DOS and UNIX commands are notable, just as there are notable Pokemon, but I think the vast majority should be deleted or merged, just as the non-notable Pokemon were. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With Lesser Cartographies significant rewrite, this is now a well-referenced start-class article sourced to multiple reliable sources. Thus notability of the topic is demonstrated according to WP:GNG. The article content itself is descriptive and encyclopedic with no major problems. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. Nice work. --Mark viking (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has sufficiently improved since nomination such that the original contentions are now moot. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2014 (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.