484:. 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 Knowledge (XXG)'s style guidelines. The argument that it "Knowledge (XXG) is not a manual" is pedantic — simply because this article is improperly written now does not mean that it will always be improperly written. --
777:. 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
409:
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
408:
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
465:
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.
380:
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
633:
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
876:
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. --
757:
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.
892:
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.
586:
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
622:
177:
659:
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.
855:
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.
445:
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.
130:
306:
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
233:
258:
171:
323:
syntax, is uninteresting and fails HOWTO. "Test", as the innovation of shells as becoming controllable, intelligent environments, is significant and notable.
734:. 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.
137:
485:
66:
591:
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.
17:
607:
Please stop your personal attacks based on false claims about me. Note that your comments are unrelated to the this discussion.
103:
98:
192:
641:
Policy states that AfD articles shouldnt be blanked. Editors are welcome to expand or improve them. I see stripping refs for
107:
159:
838:. The main reason why people vote "delete" here is because the article reads like a manual — but that should be solved by
695:
441:
aspect of Unix, let alone something so obvious, that isn't covered by a myriad of substantial sources? This is hardly an
90:
925:
40:
337:
Significant coverage in reliable sources would better demonstrate notability than an assertion that it's important.
860:
514:
418:
342:
629:
subject on the basis of work on two pieces of software. Yet all the visible sourcing for this comes down to, for
502:
153:
754:
404:. A simple how-to guide on a trivial command line utility. Assertions to the contrary seem to boil down to an
739:
489:
289:
61:
211:: article contains only how-to information and listings of program options. Maybe transwiki to some Wikibook?
527:
If "there are aren't any reliable sources", then maybe that's because someone repeatedly keeps removing them
786:
149:
405:
778:
650:
596:
541:
450:
386:
363:
328:
208:
921:
871:
856:
510:
414:
338:
307:
36:
902:
885:
864:
850:
813:
790:
767:
743:
716:
669:
654:
616:
600:
545:
518:
493:
475:
454:
422:
390:
367:
346:
332:
294:
272:
250:
225:
199:
72:
356:
839:
506:
735:
284:
185:
56:
53:
894:
808:
782:
759:
661:
608:
467:
262:
245:
220:
830:
646:
592:
537:
446:
382:
359:
324:
320:
303:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
920:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
626:
165:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
898:
763:
665:
612:
471:
94:
826:
434:
Your inability to search effectively bears no relation to something's objective notability.
882:
847:
833:
707:
800:
267:
237:
212:
410:
124:
571:
86:
78:
878:
843:
52:. Reliable sources do exist and poor quality is not a reason for deletion.
501:. There still aren't any provided sources to demonstrate notability.
432:"My own searches do not show significant coverage in reliable sources,"
829:
by multiple substantial sources in the "Further reading" section, see
283:
as seemingly unlikely to better satisfying the notability guidelines.
623:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jörg
Schilling (2nd nomination)
836:
914:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
645:
reasons as much too close to the blanking than the improvement.
799:
Not all, but I do think that list could do with some trimming.
588:
583:
579:
575:
533:
698:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
781:. Is the nominator suggesting that all of these be removed?
842:, not deletion of the article about a notable subject. --
355:
How about it being part of the IEEE POSIX standard 1003.1
530:
528:
120:
116:
112:
184:
310:, one of the most fundamental aspects of programming.
704:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
198:
558:Discussion not relevant to the deletion discussion
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
928:). No further edits should be made to this page.
234:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
638:harping on about a 10 year old beef with Gnu.
259:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
257:Note: This debate has been included in the
232:Note: This debate has been included in the
553:
256:
231:
532:It is ridiculous to remove a source from
437:Are you really claiming that there is
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
730:an encyclopedia article, but a bad
503:Saying that there "must be sources"
302:This isn't Unix, it's an aspect of
358:- this is already in the article.
24:
509:through UNIX don't really count.
825:: Notability established as per
582:(a software licence). I added
1:
903:11:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
886:00:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
865:20:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
851:08:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
814:08:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
791:05:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
768:11:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
744:00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
717:11:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
670:15:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
655:14:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
617:14:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
601:14:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
546:11:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
519:19:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
494:18:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
476:16:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
455:14:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
423:09:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
391:23:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
368:14:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
347:23:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
333:13:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
295:07:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
273:12:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
251:10:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
226:10:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
73:19:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
574:are famous for two things:
945:
917:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
779:Template:Unix commands
625:. You claim to be a
413:, they could do that.
372:So add some (there is
319:", as a simple bit of
308:conditional branching
507:inherited notability
823:Keep & stubify
536:as "advertizing".
884:
849:
812:
804:
719:
715:
689:
688:
275:
253:
249:
241:
224:
216:
936:
919:
881:
875:
872:NinjaRobotPirate
857:NinjaRobotPirate
846:
806:
802:
714:
712:
705:
703:
701:
699:
554:
511:NinjaRobotPirate
415:NinjaRobotPirate
339:NinjaRobotPirate
318:
292:
287:
270:
265:
243:
239:
218:
214:
203:
202:
188:
140:
128:
110:
69:
64:
59:
34:
944:
943:
939:
938:
937:
935:
934:
933:
932:
926:deletion review
915:
869:
720:
708:
706:
694:
692:
690:
559:
316:
290:
285:
268:
263:
145:
136:
101:
85:
82:
67:
62:
57:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
942:
940:
931:
930:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
889:
888:
819:
818:
817:
816:
794:
793:
771:
770:
747:
746:
736:HelpUsStopSpam
702:
691:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
639:
578:(a Unix ) and
561:
560:
557:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
522:
521:
496:
486:104.129.196.60
460:
459:
458:
457:
435:
426:
425:
406:"it's notable"
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
370:
350:
349:
312:
311:
297:
286:SwisterTwister
277:
276:
254:
206:
205:
142:
81:
76:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
941:
929:
927:
923:
918:
912:
911:
904:
900:
896:
891:
890:
887:
883:
880:
873:
868:
867:
866:
862:
858:
854:
853:
852:
848:
845:
841:
840:stubification
837:
834:
831:
828:
824:
821:
820:
815:
810:
805:
798:
797:
796:
795:
792:
788:
784:
783:StarryGrandma
780:
776:
773:
772:
769:
765:
761:
756:
752:
749:
748:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
722:
721:
718:
713:
711:
700:
697:
671:
667:
663:
658:
657:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
637:
632:
628:
624:
620:
619:
618:
614:
610:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
598:
594:
590:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
556:
555:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
529:
526:
525:
524:
523:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
497:
495:
491:
487:
483:
480:
479:
478:
477:
473:
469:
464:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
433:
430:
429:
428:
427:
424:
420:
416:
412:
407:
403:
400:
399:
392:
388:
384:
379:
375:
371:
369:
365:
361:
357:
354:
353:
352:
351:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
334:
330:
326:
322:
314:
313:
309:
305:
301:
298:
296:
293:
288:
282:
279:
278:
274:
271:
266:
260:
255:
252:
247:
242:
235:
230:
229:
228:
227:
222:
217:
210:
201:
197:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
147:Find sources:
143:
139:
135:
132:
126:
122:
118:
114:
109:
105:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:
80:
77:
75:
74:
70:
65:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
916:
913:
822:
774:
755:lead section
750:
731:
727:
723:
709:
693:
647:Viam Ferream
642:
635:
630:
593:Viam Ferream
538:Viam Ferream
498:
481:
462:
461:
447:Andy Dingley
442:
438:
431:
411:shell script
401:
383:Andy Dingley
377:
376:coverage of
373:
360:Viam Ferream
325:Andy Dingley
299:
280:
209:WP:NOTMANUAL
207:
195:
189:
181:
174:
168:
162:
156:
146:
133:
49:
47:
31:
28:
732:manual page
572:GNU Project
172:free images
87:Test (Unix)
79:Test (Unix)
726:. This is
710:Sandstein
922:talk page
381:command".
37:talk page
924:or in a
803:VVERTYVS
696:Relisted
643:personal
240:VVERTYVS
215:VVERTYVS
131:View log
39:or in a
627:Notable
499:Comment
443:obscure
178:WP refs
166:scholar
104:protect
99:history
54:King of
895:Schily
827:WP:GNG
760:Ekkt0r
753:. The
724:Delete
662:Schily
609:Schily
468:Schily
402:Delete
281:Delete
150:Google
108:delete
879:intgr
844:intgr
636:still
304:shell
193:JSTOR
154:books
138:Stats
125:views
117:watch
113:links
16:<
899:talk
861:talk
787:talk
775:Keep
764:talk
751:Keep
740:talk
666:talk
651:talk
631:both
621:See
613:talk
597:talk
570:The
542:talk
515:talk
505:and
490:talk
482:Keep
472:talk
463:Keep
451:talk
419:talk
387:talk
374:vast
364:talk
343:talk
329:talk
321:bash
317:test
300:keep
291:talk
186:FENS
160:news
121:logs
95:talk
91:edit
50:keep
809:hm?
728:not
589:GPL
584:GNU
580:GPL
576:GNU
534:Gnu
439:any
378:any
264:sst
246:hm?
221:hm?
200:TWL
129:– (
901:)
863:)
835:,
832:,
789:)
766:)
742:)
668:)
653:)
615:)
599:)
544:)
517:)
492:)
474:)
453:)
421:)
389:)
366:)
345:)
331:)
261:.
236:.
180:)
123:|
119:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
71:♠
897:(
874::
870:@
859:(
811:)
807:(
801:Q
785:(
762:(
738:(
664:(
649:(
611:(
595:(
540:(
513:(
488:(
470:(
449:(
417:(
385:(
362:(
341:(
327:(
315:"
269:✈
248:)
244:(
238:Q
223:)
219:(
213:Q
204:)
196:·
190:·
182:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
152:(
144:(
141:)
134:·
127:)
89:(
68:♣
63:♦
58:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.