Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DATE (command)


 * 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   merge to List of DOS commands. (or wherever else appropriate). By and large, there's consensus against outright keeping based predominantly on WP:MANUAL, WP:NOTHOWTO, and WP:N. slakr \ talk / 05:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

DATE (command)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * "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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Comment: If you don't like WP:MANUAL then see WP:NOTHOWTO. Everything outside of the lede is how-to, and the lede should be dispersed to the various OS-specific lists of commands. Jeh (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Keep&mdash;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)


 * Keep - Nom's objection appears to be with the content of the article, not the topic. The lead does not appear to offend WP:NOTMANUAL. How about we delete most of the body of the article and call it a day? ~KvnG 23:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Or how about merging the lead into List of DOS commands and deleting this one? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but it should be a redirect not a delete and can be worked out on article talk pages, not at AfD. ~KvnG 13:21, 18 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) 22:34, 15 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,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, I guess. The lede isn't really like a manual. Computers and operating systems are really important and so major commands (in several OS's I gather) are worth describing, I guess. The rest of the article is kind of manual-like, there's not a lot to say about it I guess, and I suppose that making a long article describing these commands might be called for is someone wants to do that. Herostratus (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The test at AfD is WP:Notability, which requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources about the subject.  To be secondary, the source must off the author's own opinions or analysis.  It can't just be a summary of the command line options lifted from the man page.  Realistically, there are no such qualifying sources.  Occasionally, we will allow articles where the sourcing is weak but where there's a consensus a separate article is warranted for other reasons.  For example, we have an article on command substitution that survived AfD but that was because there was a consensus it's important construct that appears in many shells and the best way to deal with it would be with a separate article explaining the concept and where it first appeared.  I find no similar rationale available here.  Nom is correct:  Wikipedia is WP:NOTAMANUAL.  Msnicki (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Have a look at what User:Lesser Cartographies has done to address WP:NOTAMANUAL in PRINT (command). ~KvnG 22:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep Delete (see comments below) - but broaden to cover all related "date" commands (e.g. by merging Date_(Unix) here). a secondary source does not require an author's opinions or analysis unless you're broadening "analysis" to mean an alternative explanation (alternative to a help file/man page). It would be difficult to base a number of technical, scientific, mathematics, etc. articles entirely on opinions or analysis rather than authoritative and informed explanation and description. It took me a few seconds to find this article, for example, which explains "date" in its own section of a paper using an analogy to a stopwatch, etc.  the detailed notability, etc. policies and guidelines are intended to take the place of generalized judgments of what there's a "need" for or what we decide is or is not "interesting". Plenty of things that are interesting aren't notable and plenty of things that are notable aren't interesting. The question here is whether there exist (read: doesn't matter if they're currently included) sufficient reliable sources out there.  The article does not appear to me to be only a man page, even if a large part of it appears that way, so that doesn't seem like a reason for deletion on its own. It does look like substantial parts here could be chopped, turned into prose, and adding sources would certainly help it to be less manual-like. I'm confident there are enough sources out there to justify an article on operating system date commands (one for each OS, I'm less confident). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  16:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Rhododentrites, you're wrong about what's required to make a source secondary. From WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."  Simply reciting the command line options from the man page does make for a secondary source.  It must also include the author's own thinking.  Period.  It's there in our guidelines.  Msnicki (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're largely agreeing with me except where I'm misrepresented. You said it requires "opinions or analysis." On the other hand that quote includes "thinking based on primary sources," "interpretation," "evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas," and so on. Furthermore, your particular reading of "author's own thinking" removes from the definition of "secondary source" all reporting, for example. If the AP reports a story saying "Today the President announced that the United States would donate $50million in aid to fight ebola in Liberia. This is the second aid package to Liberia this year. So far ebola has claimed the lives of x number of people..." that would fail your secondary source test. Nowhere in my response did I advocate "reciting the command line options" -- that's just restating the initial argument. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  15:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Follow-up, for clarity, because this doesn't seem like something that has to hinge on the particularities of a Wikipedia policy: A secondary source is a source based on material originally presented elsewhere. If I just reprint or reword the original, that's one thing, but if I explain the original in a different way, if I summarize or generalize, if I add context or juxtapose it with other relevant material, or if I otherwise give any other take on the original, I'm publishing a secondary source. There's no requirement it have a certain kind of analysis or opinion. President gives a speech: primary. Someone else summarizing, generalizing, contextualizing, analyzing, judging, etc. that speech: secondary. Owner's manual: primary. Someone else explaining, summarizing, etc. an aspect of an owner's manual: secondary. There are separate arguments about what's reliable or appropriate but secondary isn't the question. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  16:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Keep and broaden" is not the answer to "WP:NOTMANUAL". By keeping and broaden, one can only make a more comprehensive manual. Date (Unix) is now deleted for the same reason. Also, it is very illogical to keep a 59 KB article because 235 bytes of it don't violate the policy. Those 235 bytes can move to List of DOS commands. (Already there.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. Which is why I said The article does not appear to me to be only a man page, even if a large part of it appears that way, so that doesn't seem like a reason for deletion on its own. It does look like substantial parts here could be chopped, turned into prose, and adding sources would certainly help it to be less manual-like. To argue that the existence of reliable secondary sources, notability, and importance of a subject don't matter at all because of the current non-copyvio content of an article is always a very difficult case to make and my inclination is to say there's not a good enough WP:NOTMANUAL case to be made here (the rest of my comments addressed the notability question implied in almost every AfD). The number of good/bad bytes is also not a good reason to delete if there are sources which can be used to broaden it (i.e. the existence of those sources is enough). I have, however, changed my !vote to a weak keep upon closer inspection of the what the system time article has to offer (which is, I think, a better redirect target than some list of commands should this end in a redirect). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether you are trying to put up a argumentum ad absurdum or not, but this article is a man page. Regardless of whether it is only a man page or not, the only cure for its state is to blow it up and start over. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok so first I have some ultimately inconsequential procedural concerns: If an article is not only a man page, then the article is not a man page. If an article contains manual-like content, it should be fixed, not deleted. If there's any hope for content to be reworked, removed, better sourced, etc. blowing it up isn't the way to go. Blowing it up is most often applied, in my experience, when the content hurts Wikipedia -- as with copyright violations and advertising, for example -- not when the article needs an overhaul. That's what tags are for. Also, I don't know where the argumentum ad absurdum you're talking about is.
 * All that being said, I'm changing my vote to delete :)
 * I spent a little while trying to rework the article, using existing content and the sources I could find. Well, I did not succeed. The more I looked at what was important and interesting about date commands, the more I realized system time covers it better. It's likely notable per WP:GNG, but while I don't agree with WP:NOTMANUAL as a sole reason for deletion here, that it relies on so much manual-like content is indeed a symptom of there just not being enough to talk about to merit a stand-alone article. !Vote changed. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 21:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Rhododendrite's conclusion above. This article flies in the face of WP:NOTHOWTO; removal of the "man page" content would leave it with next to nothing. Look at our article on Car. That is an encyclopedia article. It describes the history of the invention, the economic and social impact of cars, etc. There might even be a discussion of how cars' controls evolved, from tillers to steering wheels, from the Model T's setup to the modern pedals-and-shifter, etc. But nowhere does it explain how to drive a car, nor should it. There is related history here (older computers had no built-in clock and their system time had to be set on every boot; still older ones didn't keep time or even date at all; these days we can set our computers' time via NTP or a GPS receiver, but some computers' timekeeping is notoriously inaccurate; etc.) but the place for it isn't in a description of the "date" command. Jeh (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or *Merge to List of DOS commands I am torn between the two options.  Many similar command line instructions are part of List of DOS commands.  However the content of this article is more extensive than most of those other commands.  So we need to make a value judgement, is the size of this content enough to justify a separate article?  It looks to me like it is.  This much content in the otherwise list of short subjects would be a distraction, however there is some debate above as to the validity of that content.  So based on the fact that there is that much content already, we must assume that even if the questioned content were removed, if the article had that much content once, it could easily get expanded back to an unmanageable size and should stand alone.  So I vote Keep. Trackinfo (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your rationale does not address WP:NOTHOWTO. "There's a lot of stuff here" is not justification for keeping an article. Nor is "it could just get expanded again, might as well keep it". Jeh (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to list of DOS commands. I don't see how this does not go against WP:NOTMANUAL: it contains a one-line description that does not establish the topic as notable, followed by a lot of how-to information that does not establish (with references) why anyone should care about how to use this command in the ways described. Trimming off the manual part leaves no stand-alone article. If the command is interesting/notable, then it can be rewritten at any time. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 20:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of DOS commands or delete. While it's true that Lesser Cartographies has done much work to improve these articles, I'm still not convinced that independent articles on each individual DOS command is a good idea.  Some of them are easily notable, some of them are of debatable notability, and some simply can not be written in any format beyond a how-to guide.  Timekeeping on computers may very well be a notable and scholarly topic, but individual time-keeping commands?  I don't really see how this can be compliant with our policies.  If people really want to keep a detailed history of individual DOS or UNIX commands, I would suggest a wiki at Wikia, where issues of notability and WP:NOTMANUAL are no longer an issue.  Note: I was  to this discussion by Codename Lisa. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to WikiBooks: having a WikiBook about DOS shell usage would be benefitial for that project. I see nothing in current text of DATE (command) that would serve a basis for an encyclopedic article in future, so "keep" and "merge" rationales are ruled out. List of DOS commands has nothing to say about DATE, so redirect to this list is impossible per WP:R. FWIW the best solution would be to merge this article into list of DOS commands and transwiki the result (the list suffers from the problem as much), but this decision is out of this discussion's scope. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This would be an entirely acceptable solution, but the last time I saw a transwiki result was... never?  I guess we could raise this issue on Talk:List of DOS commands. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of DOS commands, as much as that is not a great article. User:Msnicki makes a good argument on why this is not appropriate as a standalone article and I agree with it entirely.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete per 's argument. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:NOTMANUAL, together with merging some parts into List of DOS commands and moving the rest to Wikiversity. By the way, why do we have List of DOS commands article at all?  It's a clear example of what a brief manual looks like, and it should also be moved to Wikiversity, if you agree. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:52, 3 October 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.