Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Date (Unix)


 * 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. Apart from the numerical preponderance of "delete"s, those who argue for "keep" have given reasons which fail to address the reason advanced for deletion. "It's a notable topic" is not an answer to "Wikipedia is not a how-to guide". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Date (Unix)

 * – ( 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)
 * Delete. Articles on individual OS commands do not belong on Wikipedia, and this command is not in any way particularly notable. SJK (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable, being documented in numerous textbooks. The page seems to be formatted exactly like a Wikipedia page not a man page and so provides a proper framework for further development.  Integration with a more general discussion of date handling in unix-like systems, such as unix time,  might be done and we would prefer this to be done by ordinary editing, per our editing policy, rather than being disrupted by deletion. Andrew (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Notability is required but is not enough. Also, complete similarity to man page is not mandatory for deletion. As long as the article is nothing but a manual, it violates WP:NOTMANUAL. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with Codename Lisa.  These articles on individual commands are basically just how-to pages, and the sources are not much more than that, either.  We can not create compliant articles based on manuals that explain nothing more than the options. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:40, 7 September 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. (Not that Microsoft is looking to buy Unix documentations...) Also, please work on developing a policy for speedy-blocking people who come to AfDs and say "it's notable" when the notability is not contested in the first place. Fleet Command (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;Timekeeping on Unix is a deep scholarly topic in its own right, and the date command is where that science meets the user. As most of my evening has been taken up dealing with similar nominations, I'll just leave this !vote as a placeholder for now in hopes of adding a citation list in a few days.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes! Timekeeping on Unix is a deep scholarly topic. (Anyone who has multibooted a Windows and Linux knows that.) Only this article is not about that. It is about a . It explains its switches and gives some examples. It does not explain any of its use cases. A person who has read the date's man page does not need this article; and vice versa. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:26, 10 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)




 * Redirect to Unix time, where it is mentioned in the lead. The Unix date program is obviously verifiable in numerous reliable sources, but I could find little that was encyclopedic beyond the manual entries and derivative texts. What seems most notable about date is the underlying Unix time system, so Unix time is a reasonable target. Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, we should preserve basic facts about date on WP instead of deleting them. It is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted, too. It is a shame to lose such a useful reference--transwiki is a good idea. --Mark viking (talk) 23:37, 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!* 00:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete. As I already argued in the companion AfD for the Windows DATE command:  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) 17:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Relevant information is already in List of Unix commands. The Banner talk 12:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Date (command), which is also AfDed at the moment at Articles for deletion/DATE (command). I !voted to keep that one as a broader date command article. It seems to me there would be plenty of sources about date commands, but I'm less confident about individual operating systems' date commands. (extended commands over at that AfD). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  16:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. I don't see anything specifically worth keeping in this article that is not also in manpages/the POSIX spec, and can be looked up there if other articles need the info. Individual commands can be notable if they have an interesting history, but that has not been established. If something interesting can be found, a new article can easily be written. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 16:19, 24 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.