Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lpr


 * 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 redirect (Non-admin closure)  Snuggums  ( talk  /  edits ) 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Lpr

 * – ( 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) 04:02, 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) 05:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There are numerous books which establish the notability of the topic - see Windows Administration at the Command Line, 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 print job and our editing policy is to prefer these.   Andrew (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Please do show us these numerous books. The one you are showing here make Windows administration notable, not Lpr. Notability requires significant coverage not passing and circumstantial coverage. Also, it is only source, not multiple. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Same issues as previous nomination.  Bit of deja vu going on here.  Anyway, individual commands would have to be very special indeed to pass the general notability guideline without running afoul of our policy on how-to pages.  This command does not adequately do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no pretense to a deletion argument here.  In addition, the nomination shows neither evidence of WP:ATD nor components of WP:BEFORE.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The ATD part is untrue (see my comment below). And the burden of evidence is with the contributor, not nominator. But, I've seen you adding comments like this indiscriminately to far too many deletion discussions, regardless of the article's contents, simply to disrupt and harass. You are showing WP:NOTHERE tendencies. Perhaps it is time you are reported to ANI? Fleet Command (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * With respect, I am certain that WP:BURDEN does not bear the meaning that you are trying to ascribe to it, for the reasons that I have already explained at the AfD for SUBST. I do not believe that Unscintillating is trying to disrupt anything or harass anyone. James500 (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * With equal respect, I disagree. Both WP:BEFORE and WP:GNG entail looking for sources. And I have see Unscintillating making these ad hominem arguments once too many to concern myself giving it contextual value. History shows it lacks. Fleet Command (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge . We cannot keep this article in this state but and  previously worked to keep lp (Unix) article by rewriting and merging it into System V printing system. (CL was the nom.) Maybe a suitable merge target for this one can also be found? Fleet Command (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See below for the new rec. Fleet Command (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash;Thanks to FleetCommand for the ping. There is actually more information out there on Lpr than there was on Lp (Unix), so I have no doubt a solid article can be assembled.  Unfortunately,  has nominated a couple other command-line programs that I consider to be notable, so I don't know that I'll be able to get to this in the next few days.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I checked and am checking them. This is the only one that I thought might be worth saving (how would you save an article on COLOR command?) and this is the only one that is not Windows-related. People who know about Windows are easier to find, so don't worry. Fleet Command (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See my modest rant here on how I think these articles should be researched and written. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I saw it alright... and wept. Fleet Command (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Striking keep !vote, changing to merge + redirect below. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:43, 17 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) 22:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete For all the discussion here, the fact remains that there isn't extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources - it's brief stuff inside of Unix, Linux, MAC materials. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;Nwlaw63, here are just a handful of the results from a search on google books.
 * See sections 45.2, 45.3, 45.4 and 45.5.
 * In particular, see pages 1054–1064, "BSD and AIX Printing".
 * To a first approximation, every Unix sysadmin book from the BSD release until CUPS took over will have a section on printing, and that section will go on at some length as to why there exists two (or three, or four) different printing systems, and a bit about their history. This was not an obscure topic, so tech writers needing to fill magazine pages would contribute their own two cents.  Plenty of ink was spilled on the whys and wherefores of this print system well beyond the syntax of the individual commands. I'm not seeing any problem at all with establishing notability.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply With respect, you and I appear to have very different ideas of what constitutes notability. All but one of the sources you gave again gives some brief mentions of Lpr inside a larger context. I'm looking for extensive coverage exclusively of the subject. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I think you might have confused lpr-the-printing-system with lpr-the-command. The WP:RS I cited demonstrates the notability of the system.  The individual commands that make up the system are likely not notable.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)  Late add:  I fixed exactly the same problem at the Lp (Unix) article, but didn't do the same for this article.  Sorry about that; we were talking about two completely different things.  I'll do a quick rewrite....  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To a first approximation, every Unix sysadmin book from the BSD release until CUPS took over will have a section on printing, and that section will go on at some length as to why there exists two (or three, or four) different printing systems, and a bit about their history. This was not an obscure topic, so tech writers needing to fill magazine pages would contribute their own two cents.  Plenty of ink was spilled on the whys and wherefores of this print system well beyond the syntax of the individual commands. I'm not seeing any problem at all with establishing notability.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply With respect, you and I appear to have very different ideas of what constitutes notability. All but one of the sources you gave again gives some brief mentions of Lpr inside a larger context. I'm looking for extensive coverage exclusively of the subject. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I think you might have confused lpr-the-printing-system with lpr-the-command. The WP:RS I cited demonstrates the notability of the system.  The individual commands that make up the system are likely not notable.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)  Late add:  I fixed exactly the same problem at the Lp (Unix) article, but didn't do the same for this article.  Sorry about that; we were talking about two completely different things.  I'll do a quick rewrite....  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I think you might have confused lpr-the-printing-system with lpr-the-command. The WP:RS I cited demonstrates the notability of the system.  The individual commands that make up the system are likely not notable.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)  Late add:  I fixed exactly the same problem at the Lp (Unix) article, but didn't do the same for this article.  Sorry about that; we were talking about two completely different things.  I'll do a quick rewrite....  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge+Redirect to Line Printer Daemon protocol. As noted by FleetCommand above, this is a similar situation to Lp (Unix) where the same system has multiple names.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge+Redirect to Line Printer Daemon protocol. Lesser Cartographies (clearly they are on a roll) has found multiple in-depth reliable sources sufficient to to demonstrate notability of the topic. Based on that I would recommend keep. But it is true that lpr and the Line Printer Daemon protocol are closely related and in the interests of consensus, a merge and redirect is also a reasonable course of action. --Mark viking (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Update&mdash;Those not participating at Articles for deletion/Lp (Unix) wouldn't have caught that those who did participate were discussing the notability of the lpr printing system rather than the lpr command in that system. My bad.  I've done a quick hack on the article to refocus it; the citations I provided above should now make a lot more sense.  Thanks to Nwlaw63 for pointing this out.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Line Printer Daemon protocol. Having a compromise is better than having no consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect is fine with me. (Nominator). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect In the interest of consensus, and because of the clarification that this is about the system and not the command, I'm changing my choice from Delete to Merge and Redirect. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:16, 18 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.