Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Portable Graphics

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 keep. (non-admin closure) cyberdog958^Talk 01:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better Portable Graphics

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

Procedural nomination of a declined speedy deletion. For the avoidance of doubt, I am neutral on this. SpinningSpark 18:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect to Fabrice Bellard. No indication of notability; article itself says it is "a new raster graphics file format." Trivialist (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough disk space at Wikimedia servers. Speedy keep 87.78.173.199 (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the worst speedy keep reason I've heard in a long while. And pretty stupid too, just because space is available, does not mean we should automatically allow a topic to have a page. All the possible topics are filtered through the criteria for inclusion. Speedy action is for topics that obviously do/do not meet the criteria. Or perhaps you believe that anyone who wants to promote their business or product for free should be allowed to do so? SpinningSpark 16:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: when Google announced the WebP image format on 30 Sep 2010, a wiki article was created one day later and has been kept and maintained since then. The Better Portable Graphics format is in many respects more notable than Google's WebP format, because of its unique characteristics:
- The BPG format uses a clever 'hack' to leverage hardware video decoders embedded in existing mobile phones and tablets, thus having a strong potential to replace JPEG. In comparison, Google's WebP is poorly supported in hardware and thus rarely used in practice to this day.
- The author of this image format, Fabrice Bellard, has a unique track record in software development: almost any open-source software project he announced grew into a widely used and supported software: FFmpeg, QEMU, LZEXE. 93.172.134.53 (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be slowly gaining traction, and mentioned broadly outside of the author's own site. —Pengo 02:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to slashdot publication. --Yurik (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mentioned by other sites than the author's own, and the project goal in itself it very notable. If it flops terribly and is never mentioned with another word then the article can perhaps be deleted, no harm done but a few bytes on a Wikipedia server, but for now it has gained enough momentary fame that a Wikipedia article is reasonable. Thue (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LWN also found the effort notable enough for an article: https://lwn.net/Articles/625535/ . Thue (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Slashdot story, and notability & track record of the author. Vonfraginoff (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to Wikipedia to read about this format, and would have been surprised to not find an article about it. Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a proposed replacement for JPEG, it has been covered in news articles[1][2][3][4] and is therefore notable. --IO Device (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Absolutely notable. Referenced in a lot of articles right now due to its nomination to replaced the jpeg format. --Monkeyjunky (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2014 (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.