Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of filename extensions

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. "Badly in need of clear inclusion criteria" and sourcing indeed. czar 16:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of filename extensions

[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)

This list is very poorly referenced. Some of the applications which manipulate these files might be notable, but the file extensions (just the partial names of the files they create or manipulate) aren't notable and practically none are blue-linked. The list is always inherently incomplete and out of date. There are strong problems for WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:RAWDATA. Mikeblas (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages with the same rationale, as they're just sections of the same content:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page and all subpages. There is no chance the list will ever get properly sourced or that the majority of filename extensions will ever have their own article. The content is mostly unverifiable and may serve as a platform for spammers or disruptive editors.—J. M. (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are some of Wikipedia's most helpful lists. I've personally used these lists several times. I realise that "useful" isn't an argument for keeping them on Wikipedia, but it's a splendid argument for transwiki-ing them somewhere before we hit them with the wrecking ball. Does the Wikimedia Foundation have a suitable alternative project that could contain them?—S Marshall T/C 14:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is easily justifiable as a WP:SPLIT from the parent article, and it is "helpful" or "useful" as S Marshall comments in that it compiles and organizes relevant information in a manner that is easy to browse or search. Utility is very much a relevant question for lists because it's often a question of why we should use that format. "Poorly referenced" is a poor deletion argument, however, because it just looks at the current state of content rather than its potential, regardless of whether something can be fixed. Whatever is "unverifiable" should be removed, whatever is verifiable should not because it can be sourced. "Incomplete" is also not a deletion rationale for lists, as no one would pretend there is such a thing as a "complete" list of filename extensions (as opposed to, for example, a complete list of Best Picture winners, state capitals, etc.). The extent to which these lists can or should be trimmed down, or whether they need to be maintained in more than one list as they are here or merged, are not deletion issues. See also WP:SUSCEPTIBLE, another poor deletion argument raised by the above commenter. postdlf (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the WP:SUSCEPTIBLE argument: I explicitly mentioned it as a direct result of its unverifiability. The fact that the vast majority of these extensions will never be notable and properly sourced (and if you look at all these listed pages, there is really no chance these lists will ever get properly sourced) directly leads to these problems. Unverifiable, unsourced lists are constantly abused by spammers and disruptive editors on Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is encyclopedic and useful. Dream Focus 15:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing wrong with this list in principle. The stand-alone list guideline does not require that every entry be blue-linked. In fact, it explicitly points out that for a group of items where none of them are notable enough to have articles, a list is a good way of covering the topic (WP:CSC). Having said that, the page(s) are badly in need of clear inclusion criteria. In my opinion, file formats that are only ever used within a single game or app are not suitable for inclusion. Only files that might be exchanged outside the app that created them, or file formats that are common to multiple apps, are useful to include. But that is not something to be resolved at AFD. SpinningSpark 01:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the condition that all of them need sources attached to them after this AFD is over. ミラ P 16:52, 14 November 2019 (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.