Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Test (Unix)

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. Reliable sources do exist and poor quality is not a reason for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Test (Unix)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTMANUAL: article contains only how-to information and listings of program options. Maybe transwiki to some Wikibook? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as seemingly unlikely to better satisfying the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep This isn't Unix, it's an aspect of shell scripting. There is about a 40 year history of this feature and it marks a shift from command lines as a simple command despatcher to being a scripting environment supporting conditional branching, one of the most fundamental aspects of programming.

"test", as a simple bit of bash syntax, is uninteresting and fails HOWTO. "Test", as the innovation of shells as becoming controllable, intelligent environments, is significant and notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in reliable sources would better demonstrate notability than an assertion that it's important. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about it being part of the IEEE POSIX standard 1003.1 [1] - this is already in the article. Viam Ferream (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So add some (there is vast coverage of any aspect of Unix shell - there is no claim whatsoever that this topic fails on account of a lack of sourcing). The point is that the topic here is of more interest and importance than might be thought from a simple "it's just a manual entry listing some computer command".Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A simple how-to guide on a trivial command line utility. Assertions to the contrary seem to boil down to an "it's notable" argument without any evidence. My own searches do not show significant coverage in reliable sources, though it's difficult to find a search string that will remove the false positives, such as "test your UNIX script" or "a classroom test about this UNIX script". I'm open to changing my vote if someone can provide reliable sources rather than simple assertions of notability. Transwiki is also another quite valid result, especially if we did the same to the other trivial UNIX commands. We could have a pretty nice UNIX how-to manual, which is likely within the scope of some Wikibook or something. If someone wants to start a sourced "history" section in shell script, they could do that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"My own searches do not show significant coverage in reliable sources," Your inability to search effectively bears no relation to something's objective notability.

Are you really claiming that there is any aspect of Unix, let alone something so obvious, that isn't covered by a myriad of substantial sources? This is hardly an obscure topic. There perhaps is a case to be made that test is only a "user manual" topic, and so not "encyclopedic", but it's hardly credible that aspects of Unix are sitting around undescribed. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a standard and important POSIX utility that exists since at least 40 years. No expert would ever even consider to discuss whether to delete an article about such a fundamental UNIX utility. The article needs improvement but this will not be achieved by deleting it. Schily (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is obvious that the page is in need of improvement, but that is not something that will occur if it is deleted. It helps to have a comprehensive description of command line utilities, as well as some of their history. Perhaps the article could be edited in order to better fit within Wikipedia's style guidelines. The argument that it "Wikipedia is not a manual" is pedantic — simply because this article is improperly written now does not mean that it will always be improperly written. --104.129.196.60 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There still aren't any provided sources to demonstrate notability. Saying that there "must be sources" and inherited notability through UNIX don't really count. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If "there are aren't any reliable sources", then maybe that's because someone repeatedly keeps removing them [2] [3] It is ridiculous to remove a source from Gnu as "advertizing". Viam Ferream (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion not relevant to the deletion discussion

The GNU Project are famous for two things: GNU (a Unix [sic]) and GPL (a software licence). I added GNU as a source for Unix shell-related stuff, as I consider them authoritative and pretty neutral overall. Schily has removed it (and an IBM source, and a simple wikilink too) because he has a 10 year old beef about how "The GPL is all wrong". That is not "advertizing", that is not good editing behaviour in an article that is at AfD on account of lacking sources. Viam Ferream (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your personal attacks based on false claims about me. Note that your comments are unrelated to the this discussion. Schily (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jörg Schilling (2nd nomination). You claim to be a Notable subject on the basis of work on two pieces of software. Yet all the visible sourcing for this comes down to, for both of them, "the project forked and Schilling left because of a dispute with Gnu". Today you're stripping good refs from this article, that is agreed to need more, because either "Gnu are advertizing" (a pretty farcical claim to make about Gnu) or else you're still harping on about a 10 year old beef with Gnu.

Policy states that AfD articles shouldnt be blanked. Editors are welcome to expand or improve them. I see stripping refs for personal reasons as much too close to the blanking than the improvement. Viam Ferream (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You continue with personal attacks, the phrase "the project forked and Schilling left because of a dispute with Gnu" leads to exactly 0 hits on Google. In other words: "Schilling left" is purely fictional by you. Schily (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, but a bad manual page. There exists better manual pages in every operating system that has this command. It could be put into a "Unix 101" book, but not into an encyclopedia. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The lead section is encyclopedic, and the description can be improved. The test command is itself a fundamental UNIX utility, so there are no reasons to drop the article just because the other sections provide information that can be found in manual pages or tutorials. Ekkt0r (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added an O'Reilly reference to Further reading. There is enough material there and in other books to write a more complete article, leaving the man page information to External links. The command varies among the various Unix shells, and there is an extended test command available in two of the shells. This is just one of the many articles on Unix commands in Template:Unix commands. Is the nominator suggesting that all of these be removed? StarryGrandma (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all, but I do think that list could do with some trimming. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & stubify: Notability established as per WP:GNG by multiple substantial sources in the "Further reading" section, see [4], [5], [6]. The main reason why people vote "delete" here is because the article reads like a manual — but that should be solved by stubification, not deletion of the article about a notable subject. -- intgr [talk] 08:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- These are manuals that tell you how to use the command. How does that help to alleviate the concerns that this article is a howto? If we use them as sources, the article will remain a howto guide. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  @NinjaRobotPirate: As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't need to grow beyond a stub. Otherwise it's possible that better sources exist out there, but these are just a few that turned up and I stopped looking for more, as they appear sufficient to demonstrate notability. -- intgr [talk] 00:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that test is not a really complex piece of software, nobody should expect a long and complex article. Now that the edit warring seem to have calmed down, we finally have an article with a link to the related standard at a prominent location. Schily (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.