Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Repair permissions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Repair permissions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article appears to be entirely in violation of WP:NOTMANUAL, and does not appear fixable to avoid this violation. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Hard because it's referenced and not nonsensical, but it also is inherently unencyclopedic. Maybe I should say that the references themselves suggest that it's not a notable topic, just as "changing spark plugs" is not notable (but Car repair is). Shadowjams (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There's nothing that would keep some of this information from being merged into the MacOSX article if it was in a different tone. Shadowjams (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be the all-too-common conflation of "technical" and "instructional" here in this discussion. The article has technical content, but it is not instructional. It is informational. It discusses what this process is and does, why one performs it, when it is and is not necessary, who performs it, and where various data files and other things involved in the process are found. It isn't a walk-through. It isn't a tutorial. There are no step-by-step recipes. There's no "Now that you've done that, you next …". It's informational content on a (per the sources already cited in the article alone) notable subject. A quick search reveals plenty more sources that cover this. (I stopped looking after reading what the first 20 books, that discussed this subject directly and with more than a passing mention, had to say.) The PNC is amply satisfied. The only problem with the article is that it's not comprehensive. It doesn't fully characterize the dispute as to whether, and in what circumstances, this procedure is necessary, for example. But that's solved by editing, not deletion. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, if you'll take another look at the article, you'll see that it is, in fact, a how-to guide. It discusses — as you say — what, why, when, who, where…and it also says how. These five-Ws-and-H (Who, what, where, when, why, how) are a hallmark of a how-to guide. I'm also not sure I agree with your determination that the subject is notable by dint of being included in whatever number of websites or books. So is orange sherbet (or, to borrow Shadowjams' analogy, changing spark plugs), but we don't have articles on changing spark plugs or orange sherbet. We have Spark plug and Sherbet. How do you figure that Repair Permissions is notable as defined here on Wikipedia? —Scheinwerfermann T·C00:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with Shadowjams's assertion that it's not a manual, but I really have to question how notable this topic is on its own. Matt (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to your question lies in the numerous web sites and books that cover it. Look for sources yourself, or indeed simply read the sources already cited in the article, and you'll see what I mean. There are multiple independent published works by identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy to defend, that address this subject directly and with more than a simple passing mention. That's notability. Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is with the fact that this material applies only to computers running Mac OS X. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it if it applied to multiple operating systems. This is the same reason that we got rid of articles such as Torchic -- the parent subject is notable, and there's plenty of sources (even reliable ones) that talk about the subject, but outside of the parent subject's universe, the subject just isn't notable. Matt (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to your question lies in the numerous web sites and books that cover it. Look for sources yourself, or indeed simply read the sources already cited in the article, and you'll see what I mean. There are multiple independent published works by identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy to defend, that address this subject directly and with more than a simple passing mention. That's notability. Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep that's not a reasonable criterion. Major programs in major computer systems are notable, and OSX is in that category. Nor is it a reasonable comparison. Computer programs have a different sort of notability than Pokemon characters. I'd advise those trying to delete fiction not to expand their POV into the rest of the universe, or there will be a good deal more opposition. DGG (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: DDG, your comments read as though you're angry or upset, but I'm not sure why. This present discussion is about whether Repair permissions is encyclopædic and otherwise in line with the intended scope of Wikipedia. You seem to feel that it is, and I'd like to understand why. It's not clear to me how your remarks about deletion of fiction and "POV expansion into the rest of the universe" are germane to the present discussion. Could you please try again in a calmer, more engaged, less scolding tone? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann T·C00:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I googled on "disk utility repair disk permissions" and expected to find a Wikipedia page close to the top, and so it was. Please don't delete this page. Ragoon —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Observation: You have just nicely illustrated that this pseudo-article is being used according to what it actually is: a tech manual in violation of WP:NOT. Please keep in mind that "I like it" is not a valid reason for keeping an unencyclopædic article. —Scheinwerfermann T·C05:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep - lots of sources seem to cohere on the topic, article needs cleanup and better sourcing but does seem to scrape notability. Perhaps could be merged into another topic though. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Disk Utility. BJTalk 00:02, 6 May 2009 (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.