Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux/login

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 of the debate was delete all articles. - Mailer Diablo 10:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linux/login, Linux/files, Linux/man, Linux/environment, Linux/alias, and Linux/IO

Unencyclopedic, and partially a copyvio from http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-tutorial/ch-basics.html. — A.M. 01:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• See also Linux/shell, Linux/processes, Linux/PATH, Linux/type, Linux/top, and Linux/finger. Before anyone makes the obvious comment, please note that Wikibooks has not one but four wikibooks on this subject, all of which are better than this: Guide to UNIX, Linux commands, Linux For Newbies and Linux Guide. Uncle G 02:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, per above: inappropriate for Wikipedia, and already covered on the appropriate wiki. — Haeleth Talk 13:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a howto. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 14:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a howto, partially copyvio and on discouraged subpages, mostly orphans. I do think that linking to the specific Wikibooks in the external links section of Linux may be useful though... - Mgm|^(talk) 14:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: setting aside all of the other arguments for deletion, I find it hard to imagine any text taken from the Debian project itself could be a copyvio -- which is strictly limited to only GPL & GFDL materials. Unless the submitter has made a mistake, & these are taken from a book on the Debian distribution, then the copyvio chrage should be dropped immediately; otherwise, provide the non-GPL/GFDL source & these materials will be a CSD on that one argument. -- llywrch 20:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The Debian tutorial is GPL-licensed, whereas Wikipedia is GFDL-licensed, and the GFDL is not GPL-compatible. — A.M. 02:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Your link is informative, but irrelevant. How is reuse of this material a copyright violation? The whole intent of any GPL or GFDL is to permit reuse by the user as long as that freedom is shared in turn; worrying about the "incompatibility" of these two licenses is splitting hairs, & hardly comparible to a copyright violation akin, say, to distributing copies of Brittany Spears' latest songs. I am pushing this point because several people have agreed to the accuracy that this is a copyright violation without discussing it, or even acknowledging the irony of the claim. And their uncritical agreement over this one claim brings into question both their understanding & depth of critical reflction of the other claims made above. -- llywrch 22:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It is copyright violation because the GFDL contains restrictions which are not present in the GPL (for example, the restriction on "technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute"), and the GPL explicitly forbids distributing GPLed works under more restrictive terms (see clause 6). You may consider this "splitting hairs", but the Debian project does not; according to them, the GFDL does not comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and they intend to remove all GFDL materials from Debian (or move them to the "non-free" section) by the time that Etch is released. — A.M. 23:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 13:09, 16 November 2005 (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.