Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATTRIB


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

ATTRIB

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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) 04:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Articles on individual OS commands do not belong on Wikipedia, and this command is not in any way particularly notable. Many operating systems have commands that perform similar functions; the function itself (adjusting file attributes) may be notable, but the specific commands used on particular operating systems to do it are not. SJK (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There are numerous books which establish the notability of the topic - see Introduction To Computers And Communication, 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 file attribute.  Andrew (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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) 13:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no pretense to a deletion argument here  in the nomination .  In addition, the nomination shows neither evidence of WP:ATD nor components of WP:BEFORE.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , showing such an evidences is not required, although this particular nominator does show that evidence. I just come from an AfD that I personally closed; this particular nominator had started it and worked in concert with another editor to help keep the article. To make worse, I've personally seen you attempting to disrupt far too many AfDs with a similar comment like this. You are showing strong evidences of WP:NOTHERE tendencies. If you continue, you will end up in ANI. Fleet Command (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @ User:FleetCommand: With respect, Unscintillating is quite correct in saying that the nominator's original rationale does not appear to advance a valid argument for deletion. The rationale appears to be that the article doesn't cite sources that demonstrate its notability. But we all know that if such sources exist, it is immaterial whether they are cited or otherwise mentioned in the article at the moment. His comments do not appear to be disruptive. James500 (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You sure you are talking about the same person? Because I am not seeing what you are saying in the message above. Plus, I've seen him pull this stunt in far too many AfDs to concern myself with your defense. In addition, per WP:BURDEN, nominator has no such responsibility. Fleet Command (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My comment seeks to improve the quality of AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For reference, your list of edits on User talk pages is available at . Unscintillating (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You were advised when you posted here, "that commenting on other users rather than the article is...considered disruptive." Please assert that, and explain how, the statement, "I've personally seen you attempting to disrupt..." is not a comment on another user.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating, I didn't find your initial comment helpful. By the principle of charity, I read Codename Lisa's objection as one of topic notability.  While I would have preferred a bit more evidence of WP:BEFORE, that (or its absence) does not change whether or not the topic is notable.  Citing WP:ATD is likewise not helpful if you're not going to dive in and start making the edits.  The best method of establishing notability is improving the article such that notability is obvious.  The second-best method is providing sources so that others made do so.  Attacking the nomination, even if the nomination is flawed, doesn't establish notability.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I finally got around to skimming your link. AfD is not a collegial academic exercise.  An AfD nomination requires breaking the WP:AGF of content contributions  of the work of our content contributors.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that is a very mean thing to say; and, I am afraid, very much explains your hostile behavior across Wikipedia. People do mistakes in good faith, and we love them exactly because they have the courage to do that mistake. In case of AfD, assuming good faith is guaranteed. If I see reasons for assuming bad faith, I'd start an ANI or ArbCom case instead. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. To assume good faith, I have to assume that this was not a case of "commenting on other users", because otherwise as per the Group notice the comment would be a disruptive WP:NPA.  Please assert that this was not commenting on other users, and explain why.  12:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not ashamed of assuming good faith and loving people. And yes, commenting on other people – like you did at the start of this discussion thread – is disruptive an hurtful. You do it in my AfDs. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My initial comment is an analysis of the nomination. I modified the comment in one place to make it more black and white that it was a comment on the nomination.  Hope that helps.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure if that is an answer or not, and I want to continue to WP:AGF. I'll be more specific.  Please assert and explain that "that is a very mean thing to say" is not commenting on other users, "your hostile behavior across Wikipedia" is not commenting on other users.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * AfD nominations that can be corrected are one reason that we have WP:SK with WP:NPASR. I expect that AfD quality would improve quickly if about 1–3% of daily nominations were immediately closed WP:SK WP:NPASR.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or transwiki. This page is essentially a tutorial and its existence is against WP:NOTMANUAL. It is more like a Wikibook or Wikiversity material. Fleet Command (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed after article updates. See below. Fleet Command (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;A cursory search of google books turned up the following:
 * PC-DOS's ATTRIB utiitylets you change the Read-Only attribute bit. ATTR.COM gives you access to the other attributes as well. As an aside, Charles Petzold is a moderately big deal in the Windows universe and here he provides you with assembly language listings.  Because he's that kind of guy.
 * Provides a case study of where attrib might be useful after a crash.
 * Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Establishing notability is necessary but is not enough. The article is written like a tutorial. Fleet Command (talk)
 * Hi FleetCommand. That is one opinion (and a good one).  Here's another:  If the subject of an article has been proven to pass notability guidelines, there is no need for a deletion discussion. per Deletion is not cleanup.  In my (limited) experience, I can't bring to mind an example a discussion at AfD that deemed the topic notable and resulted in deletion (aside from trivial examples like duplication, attack pages, etc.). That's not to say the argument you propose is against policy or can't be successful.  But in practice, a demonstration of notability seems to correlate highly with closing admins keeping the article, regardless of the current state of the article.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, you have misquoted. The full quotation also requires "...can be improved through normal editing...". This one cannot. Fleet Command (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, you have misquoted. The full quotation also requires "...can be improved through normal editing...". This one cannot. Fleet Command (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. The sources offered by Andrew and Lesser Cartographies satisfy GNG. In all probability, any instruction can be rewritten as a description. James500 (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If the article content must be deleted, please at least allow a redirect to File attribute to remain. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 03:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC).
 * Agreed. It's a nice suggestion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)




 * Keep per Lesser Cartographies' and Andrew's reliable source finds. Multiple in-depth reliable sources show the topic satisfies notability per WP:GNG. The article needs a bit of cleanup to remove howto material and better sourcing, but these are matters of ordinary editing, not deletion. A notable topic and an article with potential, per WP:POTENTIAL, suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, you are ignoring the WP:NOTMANUAL issue. This article is written like tutorial and notable or not, has no right to be in Wikipedia. (Nominator's fault for not mentioning but) I can re-AfD this article for WP:NOTMANUAL immediately after this one is closed, if it really suites you. Still, somehow, I think discussing it here is more civil. Fleet Command (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , ok, I'll rewrite it. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since my recommendation, Lesser Cartographies has in fact removed the howto content (I should have done this myself, thanks LC!), leaving an encyclopedic stub suitable for expansion given the references found. I consider the assertion "no right to be in Wikipedia" as another way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are no "rights" here as such--the main purpose of an AfD discussion is to determine whether a particular topic has the potential to become a reasonable article. In this case, the article is already reasonable and sources found show this topic has potential for at least a well-sourced, modest encyclopedic article. Note that renomination of a topic right after close of a previous discussion is usually considered disruptive and often results in a speedy keep. AfD is not for renomination until you get the result you want. --Mark viking (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'm done with my first pass at the rewrite. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The prose has been expanded and better referenced. I see no manual-like content nor any how-to prose. The refs all look like RS, four secondary and two primary. It looks like a perfectly fine short article. I think the emphasis on history, context and impact could serve as a useful template for other articles on OS commands. Nice work! --Mark viking (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge into file attribute. After the rewrite by LC, the article is no longer a manual but it is not talking about  either. It is now talking about file attributes. Fleet Command (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep this article as it is well authored, well cited, and contributes to the overall well being of an encyclopedia which aims to collect the sum of human knowledge. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And off-topic. It is as much about  as it is about  . Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Only one argument for deletion remains after more than two weeks of discussion, and that !vote does not cite any policies or guidelines.  That argument does not say that the topic is not notable, it says that the topic is "not in any way particularly notable", which would be true for the vast majority of material in the encyclopedia such as the notable figures from 800 A.D.  Notable topics can still be merged, but merging to file attributes doesn't make sense, as this topic is better handled as a stand-alone article.  If merge was really all that important, ATTRIB has many of the characteristics of DIR.  There is history (which I can only momentarily cite as WP:OR which is allowed on talk pages), when after MS removed the functionality of DIR to display hidden files (or maybe it was system files), ATTRIB was (IMO) preferred to DIR for basic directory listings.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.