Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DOS
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 keep before this turns into a bigger conflict. Nominated over a content squabble that appears not actually warrant deletion, no matter what outcome. AfD isn't cleanup™®©. Redirects are cheap™®©. I'd suggest merging to/from/around/close-by other articles, or replacing inaccurate information with accurate information. "Look at the pastel-shaded box. Look at the silly little pastel-shaded box". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DOS
DELETE or MERGE with MS-DOS The article DOS is about a make-believe family of OS's. These OS's were either derivatives or knock-offs of MS-DOS, and while the article is helpful, the entire DOS page is misleading, and actually about MS-DOS. It's like referring to Elvis and Elvis impersonators as the "Elvis family of people". ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- C:/>SPEEDY_KEEP. Nom has not given a good reason for deletion. Article needs cleanup, not deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Run SpeedyKeep.exe. If DOS isn't notable, I don't know what is. However, sources are needed. Useight 23:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Nom has not made a single reference to policy or even a guideline. A merged has been proposed, you don't need to involve the folks at AfD to solve this one. MartinDK 23:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep; cleanup and/or merge per TPH, Useight, and Martin. Iknowyourider (t c) 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if I was unclear earlier. The article DOS claims not to be about MS-DOS. It claims that DOS is a common name for a variety of MS-DOS knock-offs. This is not the case. It is based on a make-believe concept. MS-DOS is actually the OS in question. There is no evidence to support the concept of a "family" of MS-DOS related OS's being commonly referred to as "DOS". DOS can either be a broad concept to refer to a lot of OS's back then, or it can be short-hand for MS-DOS, or it can mean another specific "DOS" like Apple DOS, but the very concept the DOS article outlines is false and misleading. There is useful information in the article that can be put in the MS-DOS article, but the "DOS family" does not exist. The basic idea is this: if someone were to say "My computer is running DOS" in the early 90's, the article claims this would mean you were running a "member of the DOS family". This concept did not exist in normal usage. It'd be like saying you had a Super Nintendo when you really had an emulator. The article is based on a fanciful premise. I hope that is clearer. Please read the article before voting. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 23:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's still very much NOT a reason for it to be deleted. If the article's misleading, then fix it. I would do it myself, but I don't know the first thing about DOS. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article is based on a non-truth, and states it as fact. That is misleading to people who know nothing about MS-DOS. Many people refer to MS-DOS as DOS, and this article is using that confusion to pretend that they actually mean something else. When people talk about DOS on an IBM compatible PC, they do not mean DR-DOS or OpenDOS, they mean MS-DOS. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 00:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Still not buying it. The best you would ever walk away with here is a redirect which is likely to be the result of a merge anyway. There is no way we are deleting a common search term like DOS. This is a content dispute, seek dispute resolution or even better work it out yourselves rather than try to get it deleted in the middle of a merge debate. MartinDK 00:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- DOS (disambiguation) should be at DOS, and there is no merge dispute, I put that {{mergeto}} up when right before I brought the article here. Would you delete an article on the Queen of England if the whole article described her life in Pangea 250 million B.C.? ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 00:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's a totally different animal altogether. This DOS article is only a minor mistake comparatively. INACCURACY IS NOT USUALLY A GROUNDS FOR DELETION. IF THE ARTICLE IS INCORRECT, FIX IT YOURSELF. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- If the article is based on a concept that doesn't exist in any verifiable manner, what is the point in fixing it? To make it accurate it would have to be about something else. There is already an article on MS-DOS, disk operating system, DOS (disambiguation). Do you have a suggestion? ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 00:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then make it about something else. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: This conversation is starting to become unproductive. I have a new proposal. First, merge any relevant content that's in DOS and isn't already in MS-DOS into MS-DOS. Second, redirect DOS to DOS (disambiguation). Does that make everyone happy? Cheers, Iknowyourider (t c) 00:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Too many *'s... Sounds fine to me. ~ JohnnyMrNinja
- I'd still say a generic x86 "DOS" page is needed, as the DOS (disambiguation) page doesn't list the differences, or similarites, between the various flavours of DOS. Retron 10:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: This conversation is starting to become unproductive. I have a new proposal. First, merge any relevant content that's in DOS and isn't already in MS-DOS into MS-DOS. Second, redirect DOS to DOS (disambiguation). Does that make everyone happy? Cheers, Iknowyourider (t c) 00:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then make it about something else. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- If the article is based on a concept that doesn't exist in any verifiable manner, what is the point in fixing it? To make it accurate it would have to be about something else. There is already an article on MS-DOS, disk operating system, DOS (disambiguation). Do you have a suggestion? ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 00:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's a totally different animal altogether. This DOS article is only a minor mistake comparatively. INACCURACY IS NOT USUALLY A GROUNDS FOR DELETION. IF THE ARTICLE IS INCORRECT, FIX IT YOURSELF. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- DOS (disambiguation) should be at DOS, and there is no merge dispute, I put that {{mergeto}} up when right before I brought the article here. Would you delete an article on the Queen of England if the whole article described her life in Pangea 250 million B.C.? ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 00:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Still not buying it. The best you would ever walk away with here is a redirect which is likely to be the result of a merge anyway. There is no way we are deleting a common search term like DOS. This is a content dispute, seek dispute resolution or even better work it out yourselves rather than try to get it deleted in the middle of a merge debate. MartinDK 00:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article is based on a non-truth, and states it as fact. That is misleading to people who know nothing about MS-DOS. Many people refer to MS-DOS as DOS, and this article is using that confusion to pretend that they actually mean something else. When people talk about DOS on an IBM compatible PC, they do not mean DR-DOS or OpenDOS, they mean MS-DOS. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 00:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's still very much NOT a reason for it to be deleted. If the article's misleading, then fix it. I would do it myself, but I don't know the first thing about DOS. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if I was unclear earlier. The article DOS claims not to be about MS-DOS. It claims that DOS is a common name for a variety of MS-DOS knock-offs. This is not the case. It is based on a make-believe concept. MS-DOS is actually the OS in question. There is no evidence to support the concept of a "family" of MS-DOS related OS's being commonly referred to as "DOS". DOS can either be a broad concept to refer to a lot of OS's back then, or it can be short-hand for MS-DOS, or it can mean another specific "DOS" like Apple DOS, but the very concept the DOS article outlines is false and misleading. There is useful information in the article that can be put in the MS-DOS article, but the "DOS family" does not exist. The basic idea is this: if someone were to say "My computer is running DOS" in the early 90's, the article claims this would mean you were running a "member of the DOS family". This concept did not exist in normal usage. It'd be like saying you had a Super Nintendo when you really had an emulator. The article is based on a fanciful premise. I hope that is clearer. Please read the article before voting. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 23:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
{talk} 01:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There are plenty of notable dos versions than MS-DOS Corpx 02:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, as a onetime professional PC technician DOS and MS-DOS are certainly not exactly the same thing. Microsoft has always had a lock-in corporate strategy and they tweaked MS-DOS and strong-armed vendors into compatibility with MS-DOS and non-compatibility with non-MS-DOS products. There is certainly a broader "DOS compatible" zone that involved millions of users and billions of dollars of investment. Just because MS-DOS 1.0 was somehow "first" doesn't mean that e.g. PC-DOS, sold by the then-largest vendor of PC-compatible hardware, is an MS-DOS "impersonator" (for one thing, there was proper licensing). The nominator either has an axe to grind, or didn't actually live through the period and is speculating. --Dhartung | Talk 02:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Given the number of other articles about DOS implementations, it should be absolutely trivial to pull out sources enough to demonstrate note separate from MS-DOS. MrZaiustalk 03:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Although they're all related, there are distinct differences between the various x86 DOSs, from memory usage to including programs. I'd suggest the generic "DOS" page should list the differences and similarities between the various flavours of DOS. That's not to say the article couldn't be improved, IMO there's a lot of duplicated material.Retron 10:11, 20 July 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.
