Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media Data Extended
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 merge to Daemon Tools. Merge, with a redirect. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Media Data Extended (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Fleet Command (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to comply with Wikipedia:Notability as this subject fails to provide evidences of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable file format used by a single application of questionable notability. Pburka (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Daemon Tools, where this information is ironically missing. It is actually worth mentioning in that article. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as per Dennis. Jab843 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is a common file format. It can't be redirected to Daemon Tools because it is used by other programs. Not everything in this world needs to have staggering importance in order to have a WP page. Szzuk (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, this is just your opinion; Wikipedia has its own notability policy and this article is in violation of it. For more information, please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Personal point of view. Fleet Command (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect I know all that and I'm not convinced you carried out WP:BEFORE. Szzuk (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A change of tactics, I see. I deny that. Perhaps you would be so kind as to supply us with evidences that proves I did not perform WP:BEFORE; although I do not think it makes any difference, since WP:NRVE and WP:BURDEN. Fleet Command (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a military campaign, however given your name I can see the humour! Thank you for the laugh :) I think you'll lose this one because someone else will ref it before the end of the AfD, if not so be it. Signing off HMS Trump (P333).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Szzuk (talk • contribs)
- A change of tactics, I see. I deny that. Perhaps you would be so kind as to supply us with evidences that proves I did not perform WP:BEFORE; although I do not think it makes any difference, since WP:NRVE and WP:BURDEN. Fleet Command (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect I know all that and I'm not convinced you carried out WP:BEFORE. Szzuk (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, this is just your opinion; Wikipedia has its own notability policy and this article is in violation of it. For more information, please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Personal point of view. Fleet Command (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as per Dennis Brown. --Kvng (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense but our dear Dennis Brown as well as all of you should know that "merge" and "redirect" are antonyms in Wikipedia AFD vernacular. "Merge" is akin to "keep" (it means "keep elsewhere"), "redirect" is akin to "delete" (it means "delete all but the title"). I hope you do excuse me, but I couldn't resist commenting on this, although I gather that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid § Per nominator also couldn't resist. Fleet Command (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A "Redirect" is not a delete, and you have been here enough years that you should know that, particularly if you are going to be nominating articles for deletion. You just replace the content with a single line of text, the article's history remains intact and you can still go and read it. This is a legal point that can't be overlooked. The license that Wikipedia uses requires a redirect when you merge, in order to maintain a history of edits and attribution. Or you could merge all the histories, which is not trivial, thus we merge and redirect instead. If the information in this article was already in the parent company article, I would have said to delete, then just created a fresh redirect. In this case, the article is no good, but the information IS, and to just copy it over is against the license, and well, cheesy. Also, it isn't necessary to reply to every poster. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, you are turning into a fireball over a simple difference of opinion and start accusing others of bludgeoning? Now, now, angry mastodons are extinct. And WP:AFDFORMAT thinks what I said is correct. But, you do whatever you like. Fleet Command (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A "Redirect" is not a delete, and you have been here enough years that you should know that, particularly if you are going to be nominating articles for deletion. You just replace the content with a single line of text, the article's history remains intact and you can still go and read it. This is a legal point that can't be overlooked. The license that Wikipedia uses requires a redirect when you merge, in order to maintain a history of edits and attribution. Or you could merge all the histories, which is not trivial, thus we merge and redirect instead. If the information in this article was already in the parent company article, I would have said to delete, then just created a fresh redirect. In this case, the article is no good, but the information IS, and to just copy it over is against the license, and well, cheesy. Also, it isn't necessary to reply to every poster. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense but our dear Dennis Brown as well as all of you should know that "merge" and "redirect" are antonyms in Wikipedia AFD vernacular. "Merge" is akin to "keep" (it means "keep elsewhere"), "redirect" is akin to "delete" (it means "delete all but the title"). I hope you do excuse me, but I couldn't resist commenting on this, although I gather that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid § Per nominator also couldn't resist. Fleet Command (talk) 18:11, 16 November 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.