Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SUBST


 * 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   no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 04:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

SUBST

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a manual and this article is written exactly like a man page. No objection against moving to a sister project or external wiki. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. SJK (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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) 16:53, 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 drive mapping and our editing policy is to prefer these.  Andrew (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Copied and pasted the wrong message, didn't you? (That was not a rhetorical question by the way.) We do delete notable articles that are nothing beyond a manual, per WP:NOTMANUAL. Also the source that you introduce is only one, its coverage is passing, not significant and its subject is administration; i.e. it makes administration notable, not subst. I wish I could say "no hard feelings" about you copy and paste error, but the fact is that due to the harmful nature of your replies, I do resent it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A headed section that goes on for the greater part of a page is not a passing mention. It certainly fits with my idea of significant coverage in terms of length. That passage, like any other, might arguably have a number of subjects, but prima facie, the "subst utility" is at least one of them if the heading reads doing such and such with the subst utility and the subheading reads using the subst utility effectively. James500 (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As for Andrew having cited only one source, I think I should point out that he is not obliged to cite any sources at all as long as they exist or are likely to exist. I ran a search in GBooks and the first result was this which I assume is relevant. James500 (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. "Passing" is the opposite of "in-depth". Since it does not mention anything beyond the help content of subst itself, yes, it is passing. In addition, that's not the only problem with notability; I just didn't list them because notability is irrelevant here. Please do note that notability is required but not enough. In this case, the article merits deletion regardless of the notability. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying, but if you are suggesting that GNG can't be satisfied in relation to a topic by detailed coverage of a narrow aspect of that topic, I disagree. If you raise arguments against the notability of a topic, you are making notability an issue, and other users will have to respond directly to those arguments. James500 (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (re to James) It's not enough to say "There are surely sources out there somewhere". You have to prove it by providing them. Otherwise why should anyone believe it? Especially when they have already unsuccessfully looked for sources. Reyk  YO!  04:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @ User:Reyk: (1) WP:NRVE clearly states in express words that it is enough that significant coverage is likely to exist. (2) WP:BURDEN is talking about verifiability not notability. (3) In this case, sources satisfying GNG have already been produced. James500 (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN applies to the inclusion of content. The lead of WP:V refers to the inclusion of content in articles. An article isn't content. An article can be a blank page. That is why we have CSD A3 (no content). The page name isn't classified as content. James500 (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Basically a long how-to guide.  A policy-compliant version of this page would need in-depth sources that discussed its development, not how to use the command.  I do not think such an article can be written. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if that is true, the correct !vote is transwiki. WP:NOT is not a free pass to deprive our sister projects of content or to waste time by forcing userfication before transwiki. James500 (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What policy requires in depth discussion of the development of this command and not how to use the command? James500 (talk) 03:33, 7 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, 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) 03:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete- Wikipedia is not a computer instruction manual or a how-to guide. Reyk  YO!  04:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki because it a great in-depth original essay and an excellent manual too. WP:NOTMANUAL. Fleet Command (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. In-depth discussion can be found in the following.
 * By understanding three DOS commands&mdash;ASSIGN, SUBST, and JOIN&mdash;you can bring older programs that don't recognize subdirectories or hard disks into the modern world.
 * Note: discussion of SUBST begins on page 344.
 * Subst has a troubled history. If you used Subst in DOS 5.0 to create a virtual drive, the setup routine for Windows 30 would crash.
 * The problem can be solved with DOS SUBST. This command was designed for "applications that do not recognize paths."
 * That's just one search in google books. I don't see too much difficulty adding the necessary background information needed to make this an AfD-proof article.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just one search in google books. I don't see too much difficulty adding the necessary background information needed to make this an AfD-proof article.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Lesser Cartographies. James500 (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep due to sources obviously available. WP:Deletion is not cleanup, and this meets the WP:GNG.  It's possible that a transwiki to Wikibooks would also be in order for the how-to material.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is required but is not sufficient. This article is written like a tutorial (violates WP:NOTMANUAL) and has far too little sources. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep; maybe merge into Drive letter assignment. Instruction manual parts can be removed or rewritten without deleting the whole article, and the general topic should definitely be discussed somewhere in Wikipedia. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 03:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC).
 * I agree with a merger. If you are serious about it, you should consider changing your verdict to "Merge" instead. But no pressure. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:49, 11 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 22:43, 11 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.