Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At (Windows)


 * 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 Delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

At (Windows)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A manual page for a computer program; violates WP:NOTMANUAL. Does not establish notability and is a rehash of its sole source, a TechNet article. Codename Lisa (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete : while I am sure this subject is notable and can be covered in encyclopedic manner, it appears that current iteration does not contribute to proper encyclopedic coverage. Another option would be merging at (Unix), at (Windows) and (probably) cron into one article about command line scheduling software – at least necessity to differentiate these topics would help covering their differences better. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've already add info about  to Windows Task Scheduler. There was very little that I could add, because this article is mostly a man page, so saying "I merged" would be misleading. I may look for a source on that job number issue, but it looks like trivial detail. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Windows Task Scheduler is a better target, particularly if any reliable source can establish a relation between them: according to 's output (as reprinted here), it was supposed to replace  . If so, At (Windows) could be redirected there, and further covered by contrasting it against  . — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Windows Task Scheduler, since there doesn't appear to be enough coverage for an article only about  and there's info about it at the target page thanks to . Novusuna talk 21:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 23:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep merging AT unix and windows together makes no sense. Merging AT windows into Task Scheduler make little sense. All unix tools get plenty of coverage, why can't the most popular OS get similar coverage of important tools. --MarsRover (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, . This rationale seems like the What about article x? reasoning. In addition, this rationale assumes there is already a strong reason that the content of this article must somehow be kept, either standalone or individually. I assure you, there is no such mandate. If it does not qualify for merger, it can be easily deleted, per WP:NOTMANUAL. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I second this opinion. My redirect !vote is only motivated with my will to save some mention of this individually non-notable software. I strongly oppose the suggestion to keep the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the rationale is along the lines for the why do just have to appear in one MLB game and you are automatically notable. The reason is the complete list of players is notable and whether you strike out once and went back the minors doesn't matter. Having a complete list of commands is useful. If not delete them all. Also, may I point out a natural bias in Wikipedia editors to delete anything commercial. Thus the selective deletion requests and the disproportionate amount of Linux commands to Windows commands. --MarsRover (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the reason MLB players are generally considered to be notable. The roster is notable, and so may list the player. A notable list of things doesn't make the things themselves notable automatically. The reason MLB players are given a pass of sorts isn't because of their position but because it means they're almost certainly the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (because professional baseball players get a whole lot of press in general). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  15:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. All OS's having scheduling functionality - the individual executables that perform that function are not at all notable, and have no place in the project.  Perhaps it's possible to redirect to a common term, but this article has no business existing  the panda ₯’  21:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Low notability index. --David Hedlund (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Most of the content is unwanted because of WP:NOTMANUAL. The subject can be summarized in one or two sentences in other relevant articles.- MrX 22:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Windows Task Scheduler makes sense to me. That article mentions at.exe, it would be useful for navigation (i.e. people may search for at.exe), and it would preserve the blue link in the commands navbox, which I think is a good to have. Ultimately I'm just not seeing enough to justify keeping it as a stand-alone article. It did get a little attention for its association with Stuxnet and other malware (see brief mention in this book and Malware Love Windows Task Scheduler, for example, but note the title of the latter), but that's more about Stuxnet. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  23:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per above and per WP:NOTMANUAL - All this all belongs on some "how to" site. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  00:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect in theory would fit with other articles in nav template. In practice fails WP:GNG and borderline close para. Widefox ; talk 23:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMANUAL. Further, the only source offered is from Microsoft and thus WP:PRIMARY.  Googling, I could find no evidence that reliable independent secondary sources exist to establish notability as required by WP:GNG.  Msnicki (talk) 23:27, 18 June 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.