- 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. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Title (command) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Trivial, extremely narrow scope of interest and dubious per WP:NOTHOWTO Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Surely, the same applies to all commands in Category:MS-DOS/Windows Command Prompt commands, Category:Standard Unix programs, Category:Unix SUS2008 utilities. I'm aware of WP:Other stuff exists, but I don't expect those almost 300 articles will get deleted. Singling out title (command) (and elsewhere tty (Unix)) seems inconsistent and in disregard of longstanding practice. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG, if all else fails.
- The difference is that there are commands in your listed categories that are of extensive and obvious notability. This, I would contend, is not one of those. It's a shell builtin, not a separate program (although this counts for little). It's an extremely trivial function - this isn't ls after all. Mostly though, it's just so trivial that no one has bothered to pay much attention to it. Where's the O'Reilly manual on "Title in a Nutshell"? The diveintomark blog on tips and tricks with it? At most, this is a footnote to cmd.exe. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of coverage. No, it doesn't have entire books dedicated to it, but that's not the bar that "significant" coverage is required to clear. This book, page 31. Here, page 398. And quite a few others. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How much non-howto material (that is, no examples of use) can be attributed to these sources? Is it any more than "the title command changes the console window title"? Keφr (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge: Seems like an edge case to me, and I'm inclined in favor of keeping it based on Michael Bednarek's argument, but I'd also be amenable to merging it into cmd.exe if the entire scope of the command is within cmd, and if that can be done effectively. 0x0077BE (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability is judged individually, and it has not been demonstrated that this particular command has accumulated enough. I actually think that the inclusion of all the commands listed in the categories linked is quite questionable, on grounds of notability and WP:NOTMANUAL, but challenging them all at once would be overwhelming. The least controversial items (notice how there is only one argument defending the article on its own) are a good start. Keφr (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Keep per established notability in a variety of contexts. This is a command with a generic name and hence has a number of different uses on different systems. For example, one alternative use is within DFS and ADFS to rename media. As well as being covered within various technical manuals (e.g. the '80s Acorn DFS manual) its use is also covered within out-of-print guidebooks, magazine how-tos, etc. This is the case for other systems too. -- Trevj (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's probably the most ridiculous keep vote I've yet heard at AfD. Has it not occurred to you that 1) Acorn DFS has nothing to do with MS-DOS, let alone Windows and 2) the two title commands don't even fulfil anything like the same function?! The fact that you Googled and found a text match for a 5 letter string in the context of "computers" means absolutely nothing. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. I agree with User talk:Trevj to keep this per established notability. Also, if this command is trivial, then the echo (command) (probably one of the most basic and most popular commands) is also trivial. Are we going to delete that one as well? As User:Michael Bednarek pointed out, if we delete this article then we might also delete articles about all the other trivial shell commands and built-ins of other operating systems. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- echo has extensive use within shell scripting (as a source of characters to other commands, via pipes) and there's a sizable literature about it as a result. Title has no such use. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2012 (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.