Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XFree86 logfile

Huh? RickK 03:10, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not appropriate for WP, take it to LinuxQuestions or something. Dysprosia 03:14, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ephemeral information. Neither content not format of the log are expected to live long. Mikkalai
Would RickK and Dysprosia please explain why they do not think that page belongs in Wikipedia? And Mikkalai you are just wrong - XFree86's logs today look very similar to how they did over five years ago. Eric B. and Rakim 12:51, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. It isn't discussing anything encyclopedic. I THINK it describes a file format, but I'm not really sure. RickK 20:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- If you had taken time to read the article or even the title of the article, you would have realized that it describes the XFree86 logfile. That is, we think, unless whoever is reading it is a moron. Eric B. and Rakim 22:01, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Wikipedia is not the place to discuss logfiles, of all things. Wikipedia is not a help site, it aims to be an encyclopedia. Discussing the logfile format of one particular piece of software (which may not even live all that long - there's always talk of replacing X...) is not appropriate: are we to discuss the logfiles of every other software package out there? As I said, if you're interested in discussing X's logfiles, perhaps LinuxQuestions' Wiki is more for you. Dysprosia 23:05, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - We won't say what place is "more for you", but we're sure you can guess... Then, you do not have the authority to decree what should and what should not be in Wikipedia. We also note that you do not provide any rationale whatsoever to why descriptions of logfiles should be deleted. You are also wrong on your point about X's future, X will live on for a long time. However, XFree86 which is "a free and Open Source implementation of the X Window System", may or may not, continue to be developed. Newer implementations are likely to build upon XFree86 anyway. Why does that matter? XFree86 is installed on millions of computers. By the same logic, there can't be any articles on COBOL either? Right? And the "every other" argument is getting really crappy. "are we to discuss every city out ther?", "are we to discuss every star out there?", "are we to discuss every professional basket ball player out there?", "are we to discuss every disease out there?". No. Stop bashing us please, we just wanna right stuff and not have to deal with bullshit like this. It's obvious none of you have any interest in Linux (and you don't have to) but please stop trying to sabotage for those of us that have. Eric B. and Rakim 01:02, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    - There can be (and is) and article on COBOL just like there is an article on XFree86 and on Linux. But there is no need to write articles on every file used by the Linux OS, that's what the man pages are for. --Starx 03:26, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please note that I do not mean any ill-will about mentioning a project that may be more suitable and receptive for your interests.
    - First of all, noone is writing articles on every file used by the Linux OS. Second of all, Linuxnewbies like us, would think it would be awesome if someone did that. That most Linux programs have a man page is totally irrelevant. Most countries have a CIA Factbook entry and you can go down to the library if you want to read about those countries. The same argument that you are using against this page can be used against every page in Wikipeida! And the ill-will is, that beside that phony argument noone has offered any argument whatsoever as to why they want to destroy this page. Eric B. and Rakim 22:30, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Eric i'm at work and i almost exploded laughing. "wikipeida". lol. Be careful when writing, it could be offensive (sort off) in other languages. At least funny. cheers :p -- Pedro 13:57, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have the "authority to decree what should and what should not be in Wikipedia". I, like the rest of the contributors here, have stated their reasons why this page should or not be deleted. If it is argued that the article be kept, fine. I have no problem with a community decision about this.

"You are also wrong on your point about X's future, X will live on for a long time." There is always talk of reinventing X. It may not be pending at this moment, but it may happen in future. No one software product has lived on forever.

Re: '"every other" argument is getting really crappy'. The argument is pertinent. Discussing software products is fine - discussing the minutiae like their logfiles in a dedicated article is probably a little too much.

"It's obvious none of you have any interest in Linux" This is a bit presumptious, don't you think? And no one is trying to sabotage anything.

Dysprosia 04:32, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Regarding X's future, you are simply wrong but this is not the place to discuss that. Take it to XFree86 if you want to continue. And we have also clearly demonstrated that even if you were right, the argument would be irrelevant. Thing with the "community decision" is that it is this page's community that is taking the decision. And that is a community that in general isn't very well informed or is offering any reasonable arguments. So far it seems we are the only one doing the arguing. If you think that information about the XFree86 logfile is "too much" well damn! Noone is forcing you to read it. A simple Google search for "XFree86.0.log" tells us that the potential readership for such information is quite large. Eric B. and Rakim 22:30, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      - You keep saying that users here are not informed. What basis do you have to make this assumption?

By the way, there are 11,200 Google hits for "/var/log/wtmp". Dysprosia 22:59, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just barely. Article itself looks pretty good. Suitability of topic for Wikipedia very debatable. Dpbsmith 22:17, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything worth merging with XFree86. --Starx 01:53, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. People aren't going to look for info on the X log file here, they're going to look somewhere else -- so my advice is to identify that "somewhere else" and put this article there. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Pure speculation. We wrote the page because we couldn't find concise information about the XFree86 log here. Eric B. and Rakim 22:30, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who would search for that complex of a title?Beelzebubs 03:19, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps Wikibooks would be a place for this? That's already been suggested for some detailed graphics articles by the same authors, see the debate on those articles. But, isn't there already good online doco on these things? If not, a Wikibook is a must IMO. Andrewa 04:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not before making sure it gets put somewhere else - Wikibooks, LinuxQuestions wiki, whatever. This is good stuff but not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Stormie 06:27, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
Move to Wikibooks. Put a transwiki link to it from the main article if you like. Rossami 13:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very nice runthrough of a logfile. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it should be deleted. This article helped me get it. Denni 21:23, 2004 May 18 (UTC)
- THANK YOU Denni! You really made our day. :) Eric B. and Rakim 21:49, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a difference between software documentation and a description of what a piece of software does with some history. IMO, only the latter is encyclopaedic. Compare the man page XFree86(1) and XFree86. Ambarish | Talk 05:25, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An absolutely outstanding article. This sort of article promises to take the mystery out of Linux for all of us. If it and similar articles are to be moved to Wikibooks, the link should stay at the article title in any event. Fred Bauder 11:26, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. As Wikipedia grows, we will get more articles of this level of niche detail. In the online Wikipedia, they are certainly appropriate. We can filter these articles out from the top-level paper Wikipedia edition, whilst including them in the specialist Wikipedia editions.
Keep. Nuggets like this is what makes Wikipedia great. Abigail 12:12, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. As said above, a well-written, worth-having article. James F. (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely keep. Well written and informative, although the intro could could be clarified as to precisely what it is. -- Seth Ilys 01:13, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Cabalamat 19:05, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everyking 01:59, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]