Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cfg2html
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:20Z
[edit] Cfg2html
Totally unencyclopedic article about some Unix shell script. Vanity: "I wrote it". -- RHaworth 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity and unencyclopaedic. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per nomination. Turgidson 00:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If the article makes me say "It's some random script or other", it's not good. No indication of whether it's even used in Real Life. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Its a real tool that sys admins who seldom to never contribute to Widipedia use. It does need editing, but assuming an encyclopedia should cover the world, then this is very much part of sys admins world. Google for Cfg2html produces a page of results. The question is what should the authors and users (a small group) do to make this encyclopaedic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.8.109.254 (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
- Yes, we cover the world. Yet, we've decided we cover only the part of the world that everyone needs to know about and that everyone knows. This article a) doesn't explain why the thing is notable, and if we remove all of the stuff you normally won't find an encyclopaedia article, there's really no reason we should even have a stand-alone article about it. I've been a Linux user for over a decade and have never heard of this program - and I can't quite find it if I do apt-cache search cfg2html. (nope, external apt repos don't count.) Inclusion in a major Linux distro might make this utility sound a lot more interesting, don't you think? At best, it's mergeable material: I don't really think that random bits of infrastructure are necessarily worthy of their own article either, but they may be comment-worthy somewhere else. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am not the author, I have just removed the usage and patching information. I will try to find refrences to add soon. I believe that I originally found the tool via a then DejaNews search --User:LinuxStorm 15:53, 6 February 2007
- So far I have only found DejaNews, now Google Groups refrences as far back as 2001. Is this enough? How would I cite them, maybe an article that faced a similar problem? --User:LinuxStorm 16:09, 6 February 2007
- Yes, we cover the world. Yet, we've decided we cover only the part of the world that everyone needs to know about and that everyone knows. This article a) doesn't explain why the thing is notable, and if we remove all of the stuff you normally won't find an encyclopaedia article, there's really no reason we should even have a stand-alone article about it. I've been a Linux user for over a decade and have never heard of this program - and I can't quite find it if I do apt-cache search cfg2html. (nope, external apt repos don't count.) Inclusion in a major Linux distro might make this utility sound a lot more interesting, don't you think? At best, it's mergeable material: I don't really think that random bits of infrastructure are necessarily worthy of their own article either, but they may be comment-worthy somewhere else. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep cfg2html is not only a real tool but - as the article is trying to say - the "Swiss Army Knife" for any system administrator when it comes to system documentation of any server running one of the OS'es covered. However, as previous comments suggest the article doesn't meet yet wikipedia standards I'd be more than happy to adjust where neccessary. Any pointers to existing articles covering a similiar topic highly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tbrix (talk • contribs).
- Well, take a look at any of the articles about *nix utilities. You'll see we don't have a whole lot of usage details in articles. But most importantly, it needs some claims of fame and sources that document them: Magazine articles? Inclusion in a major OS distro? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep cfg2html is really useful. The only things I don't like are the License and the Homepage of the tool: It's not GPL, and you must register at Yahoo to download. SCC (System Configuration Collector, http://www.openeyet.nl/scc/) was inspired by cfg2html, as mentioned at http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/117330/49/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.26.226.4 (talk • contribs).
- Please see WP:ILIKEIT "It's useful" is not really a particularly good reason to keep an article. Also, the case of SCC is irrelevant here. (A rhetoric example: We have an article about Thomas Edison, but not the guy who said "damn, it's dark here", thus inspiring Edison to do something about it. =) And even if it was, I can't seem to find any indication SCC is really all that notable either, but that was just a cursory check. LinuxSecurity.com article appears to be mostly about SCC in any case and the reference to cfg2html is a trivial mention. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep cfg2html is an extremely powerful tool for building, templating and rebuilding systems from scratch. I use it with another project - cfengine - to give me the ability to spot abnormalities in systems that should otherwise be identical (with the help of some shell scripts). -- Peecee 14:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC) — PeeCee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Some references have been added, but so far, none are particularly awe-inspiring. If the LinuxJournal bit was actually in print, that may be significant, but the blog posts are by default suspicious, and most of the references seem to be quite trivial anyway. Just being listed at some directory or other is not really enough (or even good material to be added to the article, actually). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete since it's not notable. --Tunheim 22:31, 8 February 2007 (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.
