Deletion of DATE (command)

Comment: per Rhododendrite's conclusion above. This article flies in the face of ; removal of the "man page" content would leave it with next to nothing. Look at our article on Car. ''That'' is an encyclopedia article. It describes the history of the invention, the economic and social impact of cars, etc. There might even be a discussion of how cars' controls evolved, from tillers to steering wheels, from the Model T's setup to the modern pedals-and-shifter, etc. But nowhere does it explain how to drive a car, nor should it. There is related history here (older computers had no built-in clock and their system time had to be set on every boot; still older ones didn't keep time or even date at all; these days we can set our computers' time via NTP or a GPS receiver, but some computers' timekeeping is notoriously inaccurate; etc.) but the place for it isn't in a description of the "date" command
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTHOWTO)

Comment: per , together with '''merging''' some parts into List of DOS commands and '''moving''' the rest to Wikiversity.  By the way, why do we have List of DOS commands article at all?  It's a clear example of what a brief manual looks like, and it should also be moved to Wikiversity, if you agree. &mdash;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMANUAL)

Comment: The test at AfD is otability, which requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources about the subject.  To be secondary, the source must off the author's own opinions or analysis.  It can't just be a summary of the command line options lifted from the man page.  Realistically, there are no such qualifying sources.  Occasionally, we will allow articles where the sourcing is weak but where there's a consensus a separate article is warranted for other reasons.  For example, we have an article on command substitution that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command substitution|survived AfD but that was because there was a consensus it's important construct that appears in many shells and the best way to deal with it would be with a separate article explaining the concept and where it first appeared.  I find no similar rationale available here.  Nom is correct:  Wikipedia is OTAMANUAL
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTAMANUAL)

Comment: redirect''' to list of DOS commands. I don't see how this does not go against : it contains a one-line description that does not establish the topic as notable, followed by a lot of how-to information that does not establish (with references) why anyone should care about how to use this command in the ways described. Trimming off the manual part leaves no stand-alone article. If the command is interesting/notable, then it can be |rewritten at any time
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMANUAL||WP:TNT)

Comment: Nom's objection appears to be with the content of the article, not the topic. The lead does not appear to offend . How about we delete most of the body of the article and call it a day
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMANUAL)