Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux build options

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux build options

Linux build options (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A lengthy list of parameters for building an operating system kernel... Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. -/- Warren 05:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia isn't a manual or guide, or a glossary of terms (and this article clearly is, so delete). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and Improve - the fact that Linux has build options makes it different from the other big OS (where you can't build the kernel yourself). Listing them individually is stupid, as nom., but instead of deletion the page should be replaced with some meta-information and a link to Linux and maybe external lists and explanations of the individual options. --.Tom. (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the fact that these options exist can be covered in Linux. It's a pretty minor aspect of the operating system, and this page is probably better suited to somewhere like Wikibooks. Lankiveil (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
• Delete. Most of the text here is copied straight from the kernel's internal descriptions of the options, as presented in make config or similar. As the Linux kernel is GPLed, this is in fact not (necessarily?) a copyright violation; however, it's not particularly useful either - anyone who's building a kernel already has this information available through the kernel configuration interface. Furthermore, most of the option descriptions are written for a highly technical audience, and aren't useful to the general public. For example, one explains that the "SYN_COOKIE" option "provides syncookie support"; another tells us that "INFINIBAND... provides support for Infiniband devices". Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• rm -rf / as we are not a software manual repository. Anyone actually building the kernel (around 1% of Linux users) will want the actual documentation that comes with their distribution, anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 12:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• sudo rm -rf /usr/share/wikipedia/Linux build options Copyvio. ViperSnake151 13:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think copyvio makes much sense when a GFDL text product is incorporated into a GFDL encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 22:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Actually he has a point. GFDL requires attribution. This throws out that info... Possible copyvio, I'd need a lawyer to say for sure though. i kan reed (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This might find a home at Wikibooks, though. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not an instruction manual; the information is readily and freely available elsewhere. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Wikipedia is not a collection of arbitrary information. I somehow doubt we can have an article discussing the social impacts of compile options in linux. i kan reed (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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.