Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DATE (command)

DATE (command)

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

Wikipedia is not a manual and this article is written exactly like a man page. It can, however, be moved to one of the sister projects or a Unix/Linux wiki. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no need for articles on individual OS commands, regardless of what the OS is. Especially since this command doesn't do anything particularly interesting; most operating systems provide a command to display and/or change the current date. Should we create articles for the equivalent commands from VMS, MVS, VM/CMS, etc? SJK (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No need" and "not particularly interesting" are not valid arguments for deletion. The later argument is entirely subjective. Many of our articles contain sports statistics, and I am tempted to argue that anything is more interesting than that. James500 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the nominator's rationale is correct, the correct !vote would be "transwiki" (to wikiversity or wikibooks) not "delete". NOTMANUAL is not an argument for the elimination of any given content from all WMF projects. James500 (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I am inclined towards keeping this article. What NOTMANUAL actually says is: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not" (my emphasis). This article does not consist entirely of instructions. Even if does contain instructions (and I am not sure it contains any), I don't see why they can't be rewritten as a description of how the command is used etc (WP:IMPERFECT). To put it another way, NOTMANUAL seems to be more about style than substance. James500 (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously James500, you should have more concern about what such a frivolous verdict would do to your own reputation, because this kind of interpretation of WP:NOTMANUAL is only found in sitcoms for their comedy value. The section, along with the entire founding policy, has a purpose. In addition, I've read thousands of manuals so far and have created two myself (excluding all those /doc pages that I edit in template namespace). All looked exactly like this page. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that my reputation is perfectly secure. The word "manual" is exactly that: it is just a word that doesn't have any particularly precise signification in English. I am not prepared to entertain other users inventing their own definitions of that word out of their own heads, which is what you seem to be doing. According to the Compact OED, a manual is "a book giving instructions or information". The same dictionary defines an encyclopedia as "a book ... giving information ...". Clearly, according to that source, the only relevant difference is the presence of instructions. I am sure that you have read books that have the word "manual" printed on the cover, but their contents prove absolutely nothing because the title of a book is normally chosen by the publisher for commercial reasons (ie marketing reasons). It is not intended to be an accurate reflection of the nature of the book's contents, and cannot be assumed to say anything meaningful about the book's contents. Nor am I prepared to rely on your memory of what these publications contain. And of course you have, at most, only read a small subset of all the books calling themselves manuals. The last thing that we want to do is to start trying to inject meaning into vague, ambiguous, wishy-washy, airy-fairy, waffle words like "manual", because it is likely to produce absurd results. O Hood Phillips, for example, defined "textbooks" as "books other than statutes and law reports" (which would include encyclopedias). And by your logic, the ODNB is a "dictionary" for the purpose of our policy. Nor am I prepared to entertain assertions about the alleged purpose of our policies that are not supported evidence, which you have not produced. And even if I accepted your opinions about the meaning of the word "manual" (which I don't), you still haven't explained why the article can't be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner which would be the preferred solution per WP:IMPERFECT. James500 (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to Wikibook, or sell to Microsoft because it is one hell of a documentation. Fleet Command (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Unfortunately, the nom can nominate faster than I can locate sources and rewrite articles. At this point, I'm just going to start marking these as keep and will fill in the cites as time allows. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]