Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ntoskrnl

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 merge Ntoskrnl; counting the few explicit votes on all others, no consensus to delete. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ntoskrnl

Non-notable Windows system file. Wikipedia isn't a technical how-to or an indiscriminate collection of information; see WP:NOT. Sandstein 05:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 05:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• I am also nominating the following pages for deletion for the same reason. The original author removed the PROD tag without comment on most of them.

• Ntbooydd.sys
• Bootsect.dos
• Hal.dll

Sandstein 05:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. Royboycrashfan 05:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete or possibly merge with Windows NT. It's hard to make a case for notability for an individual file (which is ntoskrnl.exe, not ntoskrnl), especially one that is never manipulated by users/administrators. Then again, there is one for /etc/init. Peter Grey 06:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It's "/sbin/init", not "/etc/init". — A.M. 20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Shows just how important the init article is! Peter Grey 22:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd be a bit happier with this if the Unix/Linux equivalents were nominated for deletion too. Otherwise, it's systemic bias. Unix is cool, Windows isn't. (I use both, and have done for over a decade). Why should we delete an article on "the core executable file in control of every Windows NT based Windows Operating System" and not "the program on Unix and Unix-like systems which spawns all other processes"? --kingboyk 13:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In principle, I concur with kingboyk. However, we shouldn't keep one non-notable article because other non-notable articles have also been retained; otherwise we would have to Keep all AfD nominations or Delete all the fancruft related to Pokémon et al. Each article should be judged on its own merit. At any rate, you are free to also nominate /etc/init etc. for AfD. Sandstein 14:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm well aware your first argument (it's a sound one) and of course I'm aware that I can nominate init for deletion :). What I'm really saying is: take a step back. Imagine this is the article about the Linux equivalent. Would it be deleted? I don't wish to nominate init*, which makes it hard for me to support the deletion of Ntoskrnl. *init could use more encyclopedic tone and I will tag it as such. --kingboyk 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Another comment: The article, in its current form, just describes the name of the file, not anything technical about what it does, so having a separate article is not really serving any purpose, at least not yet. The difference is that Unix administrators are expected to know what /etc/init does, Windows administrators do not deal with ntoskrnl.exe. Peter Grey 15:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• True enough. Let's nominate init too, as a janitorial action to widen the debate. "Wikipedia isn't a technical how-to" may apply there also. --kingboyk 15:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding Hal.dll, Strong Keep: That file is the Hardware abstraction layer of Windows NT, so it plays a central role in Windows portability. Peter Grey 15:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Regarding Bootsect.dos, Keep: The file has a somewhat visible role in the boot sequence, so I think it would qualify as notable. (By the way, I hope none of these are copyvios.) Peter Grey 15:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Init. --kingboyk 15:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• I have now noticed that there is already the article Windows NT Startup Process, which in turn links to many (but much better written) articles in the same vein as the ones I nominated, including Ntoskrnl.exe, of which Ntoskrnl is a (probably unintended and pointless) fork. Since these earlier articles do appear to be encyclopedic (and not only how-tos), I change my vote to merge Ntoskrnl and weak keep the rest. Sandstein 17:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Ntoskrnl and Ntoskrnl.exe to Windows NT Startup Process. Good find! As for the others, some sort of consolidation would be desirable, otherwise I'm torn between a weak delete or a weak keep :) --kingboyk 17:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge — A.M. 20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Kingboky. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. This could potentially be a stand alone article, but right now this stub resembles a dicdef & the info will be better in the broader context. As a side-comment: there is a fine line between "janitorial nomination" and WP:POINT. I think the init AfD was handled well, but I don't know if the nomination was really the best way to encourage helpful discussion. --Karnesky 06:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable windows system file. Possible merge. Kappa 05:50, 4 March 2006 (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.