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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 15:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ifdown[edit]

Non-notable Linux command. Wikipedia is not the Linux Documentation Project. greenrd 18:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for much the same reason:

Regarding the second article, I don't know how to properly link to it, other than by pasting the URL, because the article title begins with a slash - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//etc/network/interfaces - If anyone can get this to work properly, please be bold and fix this paragraph for me.

Merge and redirect all to somewhere else appropriate. Unfortunately I don't have any good suggestion, so I can't really object to Delete if no good ideas come up. Incidentally, the problem with linking to articles with a leading slash only occurs outside the main namespaces (i.e. in places where the "subpages" feature is enabled), because the leading / makes it interpret the link as a subpage of the current page. It works fine, for example, in Ifup. This old enhancement request from bugzilla.wikimedia.org might shed a bit more light on the issue [1]. I guess you can hack it as e.g. [[:en:/etc/network/interfaces|/etc/network/interfaces]], which gives /etc/network/interfaces. If you do ((la|en:/etc/network/interfaces)), it sorta works, except that the Talk page link is still broken. cab 02:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Not a repository of all human knowledge about every possible thing. ➪HiDrNick! 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment --- just to clarify, there's actually three articles up for deletion (ifup, ifdown, and /etc/network/interfaces). Cheers, cab 00:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm appalled and confused. First two related commands I thought to test for are both articles. And okay, gawk is important, but split? There are many Unix/Linux program articles, e.g. Category:Standard Unix programs. And if Category:Unix software can have anacron in it, I don't know what the appropriate criteria are. Will someone explain how to judge this and other software articles? Shenme 01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, we don't have good notability criteria for these (so far WP:SOFTWARE says: "subject to multiple independent publications", heck yes; "included in prominent OS distributions", heck YES... but should we still have articles about each of them individually?) and the *nix command articles are, lightly put, a giant mess. Someone should start up a giant big bulldozer and merge these together - we absolutely don't need articles on each and every *nix command. Some are remarkable (gawk(1) clearly is as it's a programming language and a GNU package in its own right, anacron(8) is a software package in its own right as well, but split(1), heck no - a mention in GNU Core Utilities might be adequate, as that package is what I install if I want to use that thing anyway). I hope this gets done without shoving each and every one of them to the AfD! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ugh, someone deprecated WP:SOFTWARE while I was not looking. Anyway, I hope my point stands - I was just pointing out the problems we have with the current criteria =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three. Not significan enough in their own right; should be covered in detail if someone makes an article on GNU/Linux network utilities, but definitely not individually. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all per cab. CloudNine 14:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three appear to be in danger of reaching if not already in the territory of breaching - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--VS ^talk 07:27, 15 April 2007 (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.