Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unix daemons


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Unix daemons

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Scope is far too wide. A category is just about workable, but we could never make a comprehensive article here practical. Even alternatives such as a move to list of daemons included with System V Unix would be unworkable due to the immense variation in installations, and any finite list would be far better included in a section of a relevant article on a given OS release. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;I'm not sure that the scope will ever come close to matching List of minor planets, and WP:NOTPAPER may apply here as well. As long as the notability of each listed daemon is established, I don't think there is a problem. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference is that minor planets are, by definition, enumerated by a central body, and therefore there are a finite number of them (at least in terms of how we can present them). "daemon" is just an arbitrary classification for how a given piece of software runs, and there is no central body to enumerate these (unlike, say, List of Unix utilities, where the list if limited to those defined by IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 in the Single UNIX Specification. And even then, it is not a given that less than 300,000 pieces of software running on Unix (an operating system over forty years old) have been written to run as daemons so far. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, see List of cities or List of stars then, along with their multitude of sub-lists. Like I said, the list needs to be limited to daemons that satisfy the notability requirements. Even if it extends to 300,000, it's still a finite list. RJH (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that it "fails WP:NOT" (I said nothing of the sort) but that it can never approach complete coverage of the purported subject matter. See WP:SALAT and search for "scope". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep List of Unix daemons, delete list of daemons included with System V Unix.
 * I know what a Unix daemon is. I don't need to know what's installed on a particular system, for this does obviously vary. For a list of daemons available, I'm happy with it as it is, and it's obvious and non-problematic that individual systems may have them installed or not. To claim that a particular set of daemons was the set installed for any particular distro, now that would be were things become non-encyc. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How does this address the scope problem, namely that this is an open-ended list with essentially innumerable potential content? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see "open ended" for List of Unix daemons as a problem here, any more than it prevents us having an article on cardinal numbers. Members of this list must be Unix daemons, but there is no implication the article covers all of the possibles. The difference between this and System V is because that one is tying the list to a more specific, and thus presumably bounded, list - which is the constrained, but not clearly defined, situation that we can't actually achieve. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2011 (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.