Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dumpfile
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 redirect to Core dump. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dumpfile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Patent nonsense. It this a hoax? Fleet Command (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most basic OS troubleshooting components for most every known operating system and to troubleshoot malware. Sorry to say, but this is a very well known term among most intermediate computer users.Nate • (chatter) 02:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Edited Upon further research and the other nom reasonings, I have decided to change to a redirect to Core dump as this does better describe the concept. I will retain a copy of this article to merge in the Windows-centric details within the body of "Core dump" where I can and thank everyone for their input and clear explanations of their votes. No further comment will be made to the nominator on my side. Nate • (chatter) 06:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Utter nonsense! Did you even read the so-called article before saying such a thing? It talks about computer simulation. Fleet Command (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it actually is about Windows dump files, or Minidumps as they're officially known. However the author clearly doesn't understand what they contain nor how they're used. Pburka (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that so? Well, I say do feel free to let your imagination run away with yourself in this case. Anyway, Windows dump files cannot be opened with Task Manager and they don't simulate anything. In any case, I will keep a link to this AfD as a joke. If I were an uninvolved admin, I would have blocked this User:Mrschimpf a.k.a Nate for exhibiting such a low degree of competence (advising Speedy Keep for patent nonsense). Fleet Command (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wow, assume good faith, will you please? I was commenting on the Windows portion of the article. If there's an issue with the actual writing of the article, please, fix it. I have been here six years and really don't appreciate being talked down to like this in a nomination process at all. I reduced it down to a plain keep, but I felt your nomination rationale was not written well to begin with. I'm not going to comment further but I have looked in dumpfiles often to troubleshoot installs in Windows. Nate • (chatter) 19:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! This is most glaring misuse of "Assume Good Faith" and "So Fix It" that I have ever seen, especially in response to "Competence is required". ("Competence is required" basically says "ban this guy because he is damaging Wikipedia in good faith".) Seriously Nate, you should read the articles to which you link as well as the article which you like to oppose. Fleet Command (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not engage with you further except to say that you can create a dumpfile in the task manager if you right-click on a process and then select 'Create dump file', so the article is correct in saying that dumpfiles can be created through the Task Manager, though badly written (thus the cite of SOFIXIT, which I have now done with a cite to the MS Knowledge Base). I am trying to engage with you civilly and it's clear that you do not want to do so; do not expect further discussion from me as I have defended my view of the article. Nate • (chatter) 06:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such command in my Task Manager. Fleet Command (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I am an ininvolved admin, and there is nothing block-worthy about Nate's conduct here - quite the opposite. Suggesting that you'd block an editor essentially for disagreeing with you is bad form, and does very little to support your argument. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite right. But I said "If I were..." which is a hypothetical expression about myself and uses reinforced negation: I am neither an admin nor uninvolved! The whole point of my post was saying that careless voting in AfD proves damaging to Wikipedia, be it in good faith or bad faith. All the same, if you don't know about reinforced negation, you know that admins have different opinions, right? If my memory serves me well, you are the administrator who was partly involved with me in a case in which a user (I won't name him here) closed an AfD unilaterally; you did not block that user but another admin did. Fleet Command (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I'm involved with regards to you, then it's news to me. To be honest, I don't recall any such incident - which says nothing at all other than that I don't remember the incident, the details, or that I had been involved in an incident that involved you. Sorry. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite right. But I said "If I were..." which is a hypothetical expression about myself and uses reinforced negation: I am neither an admin nor uninvolved! The whole point of my post was saying that careless voting in AfD proves damaging to Wikipedia, be it in good faith or bad faith. All the same, if you don't know about reinforced negation, you know that admins have different opinions, right? If my memory serves me well, you are the administrator who was partly involved with me in a case in which a user (I won't name him here) closed an AfD unilaterally; you did not block that user but another admin did. Fleet Command (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not engage with you further except to say that you can create a dumpfile in the task manager if you right-click on a process and then select 'Create dump file', so the article is correct in saying that dumpfiles can be created through the Task Manager, though badly written (thus the cite of SOFIXIT, which I have now done with a cite to the MS Knowledge Base). I am trying to engage with you civilly and it's clear that you do not want to do so; do not expect further discussion from me as I have defended my view of the article. Nate • (chatter) 06:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! This is most glaring misuse of "Assume Good Faith" and "So Fix It" that I have ever seen, especially in response to "Competence is required". ("Competence is required" basically says "ban this guy because he is damaging Wikipedia in good faith".) Seriously Nate, you should read the articles to which you link as well as the article which you like to oppose. Fleet Command (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wow, assume good faith, will you please? I was commenting on the Windows portion of the article. If there's an issue with the actual writing of the article, please, fix it. I have been here six years and really don't appreciate being talked down to like this in a nomination process at all. I reduced it down to a plain keep, but I felt your nomination rationale was not written well to begin with. I'm not going to comment further but I have looked in dumpfiles often to troubleshoot installs in Windows. Nate • (chatter) 19:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that so? Well, I say do feel free to let your imagination run away with yourself in this case. Anyway, Windows dump files cannot be opened with Task Manager and they don't simulate anything. In any case, I will keep a link to this AfD as a joke. If I were an uninvolved admin, I would have blocked this User:Mrschimpf a.k.a Nate for exhibiting such a low degree of competence (advising Speedy Keep for patent nonsense). Fleet Command (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it actually is about Windows dump files, or Minidumps as they're officially known. However the author clearly doesn't understand what they contain nor how they're used. Pburka (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Utter nonsense! Did you even read the so-called article before saying such a thing? It talks about computer simulation. Fleet Command (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to core dump. This article is quite confused, but I think it's trying to describe Windows dump files, which are essentially equivalent to core dumps. Pburka (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Maybe as DMP file or something. Sources can be found, such as this. I imagine most Windows formats could be considered notable MadCow257 (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You imagine? This so-called article is just a line of incomprehensible gibberish and things like this must be deleted per WP:CSD#G1. I do not know why it has become fashionable that people come to AfDs and mumble something about notability and say "I imagine". Fleet Command (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't immediately obvious that page is nonsense - if you had given an explanation of the claim this would have been avoided. The page has multiple editors, the context is split between minidump and Electronic design automation — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadCow257 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You imagine? This so-called article is just a line of incomprehensible gibberish and things like this must be deleted per WP:CSD#G1. I do not know why it has become fashionable that people come to AfDs and mumble something about notability and say "I imagine". Fleet Command (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Core dump. This will cover at least half of what this confused article is trying to do. --Kvng (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Not a hoax, not patent nonsense and does not refer to a Core dump; the single-purpose author of this article (User:Bybell) created or edited a set of related articles all based on/around a single open-source software product, GTKWave. dumpfile in this context refers to an effectively proprietary dump of data from a GTKWave simulation; there are several related articles about specific types of dumpfiles in the GTKWave context. At least one of the related articles (GtkPlug) is already prod'd and there is a clear conflict-of-interest as this user is apparently also the author/maintainer of the GTKWave software. The GTKWave software is probably notable; the concept of dumpfiles with respect to it certainly isn't. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shmidcat, a related article by the same user already deleted and redirected to GTKWave.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm! Nice to know all these... except "Dump files can be accessed through the task manager on a Microsoft Windows OS (Operating System)", which constitute half the article, is pure patent nonsense (or misinformation): Task Manager does not open anything at all. Fleet Command (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please review the definition of WP:Patent nonsense. Nothing in this article is patent nonsense and it does not qualify for speedy deletion. Wrong is not the same thing as nonsense. Pburka (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let us just agree to disagree on this matter because I strongly feel that the article meets the following definition:
Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it. If the meaning cannot be identified, it is impossible to accurately copy-edit the text.
In fact, I brought it to AfD because I did expect some opposition. (Although I expected... Never mind.) Fleet Command (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there's nothing salvageable in in the current article. There is indication in the article and quick research I did that Dumpfile can refer to the approximate equivalent of a Core dump on a non-Unix OS. --Kvng (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. You are referring to plausible redirect policy. Good course of action. I appreciate it. Fleet Command (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there's nothing salvageable in in the current article. There is indication in the article and quick research I did that Dumpfile can refer to the approximate equivalent of a Core dump on a non-Unix OS. --Kvng (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please review the definition of WP:Patent nonsense. Nothing in this article is patent nonsense and it does not qualify for speedy deletion. Wrong is not the same thing as nonsense. Pburka (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm! Nice to know all these... except "Dump files can be accessed through the task manager on a Microsoft Windows OS (Operating System)", which constitute half the article, is pure patent nonsense (or misinformation): Task Manager does not open anything at all. Fleet Command (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Core dump, per the above. On point, there is nothing in this article that qualifies as WP:Patent nonsense. If the original author has a pattern of bad articles and seems to be a single purpose account, that can be dealt with - but is outside the scope of this debate. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to core dump with WP:SNOW. Removed unreferenced rubbish about simulators. -- samj inout 07:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And actually added a reference too! Superb work! (Too bad though; the article still have a lot in the way of merit to be kept.) Still, I believe you can safely change your recommended action from Redirect to Merge. I hate seeing your bit of alchemy lost! Fleet Command (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Core dump which covers the topic very well and in enough detail already.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Core dump. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2011 (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.