Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of executable file formats

Comparison of executable file formats

Could be replaced with a single sentence in the PE article Mblumber (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Even then a sentence would do, I don't think the table is needed.--Wadeperson (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not live up to its title. Where's the CP/M COM format? The DOS EXE format? The Windows CLI format? The Unix a.out format? It's just a trivial table of three features found in PE and not in the two types used for comparison. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read and learn our Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. We don't delete articles because they haven't sprung forth, fully grown, from the head of Zeus. We only delete stubs if there is no potential for expansion. You've just argued that there is a lot of potential for expansion, which is a strong argument for keeping according to Wikipedia policy, no matter what boldfaced word it happens to be prefixed by. Uncle G (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation at a later point. We should have an article on this subject, I think, but the current one is a long way from NPOV: it just lists three advantages of PE and shows that the more popular Unix formats don't support them. If it weren't so biased, I'd say keep it as a reasonable stub. JulesH (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So why haven't you edited it to make it into a reasonable stub? You've written more words here than would probably be needed to actually fix the article to address your concern. Non-neutrality isn't a deletion criterion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I don't have the sources to fix it. Neutrality could only be fixed by adding more details so that the features aren't skewed, which is quite a big job for somebody who doesn't already know these details by heart. JulesH (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article did not contain an {{subst:afd1}} notice until just now, and was only nominated for Proposed Deletion yesterday (by 76.66.198.171, ironically). So editors with an interest may not have been aware of this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]