Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layered Image File Format

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 Image file format#Other raster formats as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 23:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Layered Image File Format

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. I see it mentioned at Image file format#Other raster formats, but not every format listed there has its own article, so I think nothing would be lost by deleting it. I would also support draftifying the article if someone could show that it is the subject of instruction at schools or third-party manuals, per WP:NSOFT. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain about this article. PSD is "a" layered image file format.[1][2], but I don't think it's "this" layered image file format. This one appears to be mentioned on p. 235 of this expensive book, but I can only see the index entry, not the page itself. Overall, I think that a blank and redirect to Image file format#Other raster formats is probably the right outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books turned up the same source, and won't let me access page 235. Other file formats are discussed in moderate detail in surrounding pages, which may give a sense of what sort of info we'd be likely to get out of the book. Probably still never going to be more than a sub-stub, so I'd endorse a merge of anything that can be sourced, and a redirect per WhatamIdoing -- Avocado (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2025 (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.