Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chsh

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:48Z

[edit] Chsh

Chsh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a mirror or repository. This article is just a duplicate of information from the chsh man page. Compare with chsh(1) – Linux User's Manual. (note, this doesn't mean it's a copyvio. Linux documentation is all under GFDL or the equivalent. It just means it's a duplicate, and and why should Wikipedia be a mirror of what's widely available elsewhere?) adavidw 03:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm clarifying my nomination. The article has been expanded significantly, and the reasoning above no longer applies. There's still a question of notability. Surely not every Linux/Unix command is notable. In my Linux/Unix experience I've never had occasion to use this command. However, my experience is relatively small, and I don't feel qualified to judge the notability. I'll leave that for the rest of y'all to debate. I'm officially no vote on this one. --adavidw 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete It is a very small article with little or not context to the reader, WP:CSD#A1. Article has no promise for being expanded. Non-encyclopedic. Jerry lavoie 04:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Info easily gathered as well. Xiner (talk, email) 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not man(1). This program is much less notable than ls or cat, and I know several engineers who have never used it, despite hacking on Unix systems for years. Additionally, the program is not specified in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. All of this adds up to non-notability. Grouping several of these minor utilities into one article might be suitable, however. --N Shar 05:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• It's not a copy of any manual page. It's not small. It doesn't lack context. And it clearly could be expanded, because it has been. Uncle G 14:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, it can be expanded. Is it notable? --adavidw 17:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I suggest trying to determine that for yourself by evaluating the depths of the available sources. Look at the published works cited in the references section of the article, and any other published works that you can find, and seeing whether our WP:SOFTWARE criteria are satisfied. If it helps, notice that there are two classes of books when it comes to guides to Linux distributions and to Unix: those that simply re-print the manual page, and those that actually devote one or more pages to their own, original, discussions of the command. The books cited are in the latter class. Uncle G 23:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep thanks to Uncle G's improvements. The article has changed greatly since this AfD started. Notability is fine since it's a common Unix utility and sources are provided. -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very widespread command, and the article fulfills a useful encyclopedic purpose in comparing chsh behavior on different systems, while a man page will generally only tell you how it works on your own specific system. —David Eppstein 16:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I would've agreed with the delete before the changes; nice job, Ungle G. - grubber 14:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; the article as it currently stands serves an entirely different function than a chsh manual page, includes references, and builds the web by including relevant wiki links. Also, a note for the original nominator: GNU/Linux documentation does not always use the GFDL; I would speculate based on my experience that most non-FSF documentation uses the same license as the program it documents. --Josh Triplett 09:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as it is not notable notable. We can not cover every shell command there is. --Tunheim 22:34, 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.