Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Userland (computing) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Userland_(computing)

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 user space. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userland (computing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article attributes two different meanings to this "term". First is partially original research (the Jargon File does not state anything about privilege separation, and it is quite unclear what separation the article refers to). Second meaning is unsourced at all. So, there is a dab page Userland where these two meanings should be listed and briefly explained, but this page is not an article and should be deleted. Also, I'm going to remove that link from {{Operating system}} which will help to estimate how this "article" is linked; now that template effectively jams the list at Special:Whatlinkshere/Userland (computing). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to user space is the obvious solution. I've never seen "userland" used to refer to a user's home directory. Also, privilege separation is a very well-defined concept in operating systems. (PS: if you think that something is wrong with an article, go to the talk page first. Requesting deletion is really unnecessary here) -- intgr [talk] 15:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I have no objections against redirection to user space. Mentioning of privilege separation (as a part of criterion) leads to undefined classification of root-owned user space processes: must they be classified as userland, or they are not userland nor kernel? If there is something unclear in article, it obviously is not a significant argument against article in whole. But on the edge of deletion due to another defects, where all other content is trivial or questionable, it may became a valid weak argument for deletion. Certainly, if I did not invoke this AfD, I would try to improve or remove this. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please, fix a link in {{infobox OS}}. I am not sure that it is so narrow as user space. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to user space, since it's a synonym in most cases. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This should be redirected to user space  — mikelifeguard@enwiki:~$  23:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect. Yes, this is a valid term, but a lousy article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2010 (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.