Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archive eXchange Format

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 delete. If someone wants to userfy or incubate it, just ask me. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archive eXchange Format

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

I cannot find any significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources to indicate notability. The article as it stands is promotionally written and deals with a subject just unveiled to the public today. 32 hits on Google suggest that this article is perhaps the most attention given to the subject on the internet. It is not our purpose to be used to promote products such as this. My prod was bizarrely removed without any comment on the article's merit. Them From Space 01:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the article, it was launched at a tradeshow, TODAY. That it hasn't received any signficant coverage by reliable sources, or any coverage of any kind, should not come as a surprise to anyone. You can't verify that which does not exist. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Article is well referenced. Perhaps move to a appropriate location until very notable? Software however is not particullarly groundbreaking.01001010101010010101001 (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are scattered external links in the first section, the rest of the article is not referenced at all and none of the external links provide indication of notability. Them From Space 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Themfromspace stated, it is actually not referenced well at all. It is long, it is detailed, as I would expect it to be when the creators of the software also create the article. The article was created a few hours after it hit the tradeshow, there is no way any independent person could possible know that much about the software without it being a COI. That alone isn't a reason to delete, but the notability (or lack thereof) is. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Brown and Themfromspace. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I wouldn't have written this yet, but as it was launched at a fairly significant show I'd regard it as premature to claim that it's already clear that this is non-notable. If no 3rd parties have picked up on it in a month, then I'd be much more inclined to delete it, but not today. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point and have the policy on it's head. No one has to prove it is non-notable for it to be deleted. The burden of proof is to demonstrate it IS notable. In the event that it can not be demonstrated through verification by reliable sources that it IS notable, then the policy clearly says to delete. Once 3rd parties that pass WP:RS have covered it (in a month, in year, or never) THEN it will have met the criteria for inclusion. If we read the policy the way you are, Wikipedia would be full of articles on all the newest products the day they release a press release. That is clearly not what Wikipedia is Dennis Brown (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The format is clearly an attempt to become a notable product within a very obviously important niche (archiving is already a big problem and is desperate for solutions). If it is accepted as such, it will just as obviously become notable as WP:RS will discuss it. Yet if it fails to attract industry acceptance, it will go the way of many other failed protocols. The question is not whether the tech press pick up on it the day of its announcement (they obviously either won't yet, or will merely be reprinting press releases), but whether the SMPTE et al decides to back it for use or not. That's not a decision that will have any clear outcome in the length of an AfD. As I said, I wouldn't have written this today, but once written it's foolish to make work for WP by deleting it, only for us to have to recreate the same content in the very near future. As AXF is already a product of a working group of the SMPTE itself, the likelihood is that they're going to go with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing why you think the protocol is important. That is not a criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia. Using your own words "The format is clearly an attempt to become a notable product". Using Wikipedia to become notable is not within the scope of Wikipedia's goals. Sorry, but this is a textbook case of what Wikipedia is not. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate/Userfy - When this article gains some real Independent reliable sources that can attest to it's notability it can live in main space. Until then the article doesn't yet qualify and can live in Userspace or the Incubator. Hasteur (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds like a notable file format. Found one reliable source so far reviewing it. http://sportsvideo.org/main/blog/2011/04/10/front-porch-looks-to-standardize-digital-storage-with-revamped-axf/ Dream Focus 04:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not an independent source. A blog posting on a product of one of its sponsors really can't be considered enough to show notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for Rescue Dream Focus 04:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Strong] delete: unsourced article on an apparently obscure, and at this stage largely theoretical, file system. No substantive reliable third party sourcing identifiable through Google News/Books/Scholar (blog posts being neither particularly substantial nor particularly reliable), no apparent evidence that it has been widely implemented. If, at some later stage, it achieves widespread and/or notable adoption, and thus coverage, we can recreate the article -- for the time being (and probably some years to come) WP:CRYSTAL would seem to apply. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading to 'strong delete' per Dennis Brown's points below (both the COI & the fact that the article being written only two hours after announcement aggravates the WP:CRYSTAL issue.)

Keep promising file format, nicely written article, nothing gained by deleting. Our m:Vision is to help share all the worlds knowlege, and that includes new innovations that havent yet been written about in elite sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That mission statement is from Meta, not Wikipedia itself, and is still used out of context. You might also want to read up on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. "Going to be" is not the same as "is notable", and the guidelines here draw a very clear line between the two. That is why notability and verification guidelines exist. Once the subject matter has been covered significantly by reliable sources, no one would have a problem with the article being here. At this time, it hasn't, probably since the article was created two hours after it was announced at a trade show, obviously with COI. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Alright, for this article to be kept, since there's no sort of inherent notability for container formats, this has to at least pass the GNG. As of yet, there have been no independent and reliable sources shown that have significant coverage. Sounds like it's notable, article is well written, or references probably exist are not valid arguments to keep. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are a suggestion, not absolute law like policy. You use common sense and when necessary ignore all rules. If a rule interferes with improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. Doe it make the Wikipedia better to list every file format there is? Does it make it a more complete encyclopedia? I'd say so. Dream Focus 08:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is policy: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And you have given no reason whatsoever why it would be "common sense" to WP:IAR and keep what is (given the timing of its creation, and its WP:SPA creator) a rather obvious piece of WP:COI self-promotion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate Wikipedia:Article Incubator is the ideal resolution for this AfD. If this format gains acceptance, the article can come back, or if not, it will linger in the incubation process. My thanks go to Hasteur (talk, who mentioned incubation above. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is incubation an appropriate resolution for a topic where there hasn't been time for (reliable third-party) sources to have even been written (assuming they ever are)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation can provide time for reliable third-party sources to be written and added to the article. Deletion makes it much harder to get that done. If there are no good sources added, then the article will languish in the incubation stage. It seems to me that such a future is likely, but there is no need to predict the future WP:CHRYSTAL, just wait to see what happens.

The problem being that such reliable third party sources will likely take several months (and possibly even years) to eventuate. For example, NTFS was introduced in 1993, but its article has only a single source (from 1994) from earlier than 1998. And I'd point out that AXF has only been announced -- it hasn't even been released (as functioning software) yet. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete 1 gnews hit says it all [1]. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream news sites don't talk about file formats. Does anyone know how to search through reliable sources that cover things like this? For Anime and Manga, Google news didn't pick up things, so they developed a special search to go through reliable sources for it. Anything like that for technology or computer related things? Dream Focus 14:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus: news reports are generally the only reliable sources for a topic as new as this is -- so LibStar is being perfectly reasonable in relying on news coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources that don't appear in that. Not every magazine appears in Google news search for instance. Also some websites are considered reliable sources. Isn't there a list of them somewhere for technological and software matters? Dream Focus 15:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the article was created literally just two hours after the product was announced at a trade show. There just isn't any way it would notable so fast. It has yet to be determined if this will be just another format, or something that makes enough of a different to be adopted and 'notable'. I like saving articles whenever possible, but this was just premature. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And generally magazines would not cover the mere announcement of something as esoteric as an (at this stage largely theoretical) archival format. They would wait until there's actually a practical implementation to review. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No significant independent coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources to show any notability. That combined with the obvious COI and advertising issues here makes this pretty clear.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:CSD#C11 unambiguous promotion or WP:CSD#C12 unambiguous copyright infringement; article creator may pick one or both. ;-) In either case, no prior good version to revert to. If Bcampano (talk · contribs) is the creator of the file format, then this is blatantly WP:COI promotion of his own work. And whether this user is the creator or not, the article is blatant cut-and-paste from http://www.openaxf.org/technical-details.php which contains no license, and the article creator gives no indication of permission to reuse. (And if one assumes the article creator wrote the website and is licensing it by posting it here, then it's back to speedy for WP:SPAM again.) Failing all that, Userfy or Delete as the article would have to be rewritten (for copyright reasons) and probably remain a long-term stub; it has no sources (let alone ones that establish notability); it is about a new thing just released in the last 2 weeks; the very few sources mentioned in AfD seem to be close to subject-sourced pass-throughs; and the claims of potential notability in this AfD seem to be WP:CRYSTAL. It's worth pointing out that even well-known organizations, that issue notable standards, also issue a lot of non-notable standards. --Closeapple (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I only spent about 3-5 minutes, but I'm not seeing the copyright issues. Seems similar, but not that similar. I'm guessing I'm missing something? Hobit (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to incubator Doesn't meet our notability guidelines, but might reasonably be expected to do so shortly. Userfication is a reasonable action for such situations. Hobit (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this 'reasonable expectation' come from? The format is currently purely theoretical, with no practical implementation available (i.e. it is largely vaporware), so there's nothing for third parties to review or otherwise write about. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found one reference which look independant tvtechnology.com. That reference does say the format is in development, so it might be too soon for a wikipedia article. Would userfying the article be a solution?--Salix (talk): 20:35, 22 April 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.