Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Large file support

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. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Large file support

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

NN, de-PROD without improvement of listed issues. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Be..anyone (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JFTR, it is certainly an interesting topic, demonstrated by the NEO OR redirect zoo FAT16X, FAT16+, FAT32B, FAT32X, FAT32+, FAT+, FATPLUS by one contributor, and other desparate attempts to get the most or even more out of 16bit arithmetic limited to 32 bits with overflow. But it is not a valid topic, because the uses of "large" depend on ad hoc definitions of whatever was considered as large a decade ago. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Failure by to nominator to read the first sentence of the article: "Large file support is the term frequently applied to the ability to create files larger than either 2 GB or 4 GB on 32-bit operating systems." This is a term in common use and there is nothing arbitrary about the use of "large" here. —Ruud 09:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Sufficient WP:RS exist to establish notability. Topic is a term of art that is understood to have a particular meaning in this domain. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article's not perfect but notability is there, Passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is quite notable and the prod/improvement issue is not a reason to delete — articles are explicitly allowed to be imperfect because Wikipedia is work-in-progress. Andrew D. (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2015 (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.