Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.db (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Alphabetical list of file formats (A–E). Though suggestions of redirecting to database are more represented, I note concerns that this extension is not necessarily related to database as a concept. Instead, per rybec's suggestion, this will be redirected to Alphabetical list of file formats (A–E) (after all, Redirects are cheap). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.db

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

As the article itself states, the .db extension alone is not indicative of any file type; the article is mostly a dictionary definition too. ï¿½ (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Database. Surprisingly this extension is not presently discussed at the target and a merge will fix that omission. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to database. not enough material for a stand-alone article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect - anyone interested in .db will likely benefit from the context provided in the Database article. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect There is not enough material here for anything. As the article mentions, .db can be used by anybody for anything. This is unlike .jpeg or .wav where there's a specific format to cover or even .exe where there's a history of the extension. There is no content that could be merged to database. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 04:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect - very little info, but I have to agree with Anne Delong to redirect it into Database article. could be very useful for many people who dont know this file extension. BrandonWu (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to reiterate that redirecting to database is not helpful. Someone researching, for example, a .db file, will not be helped by learning about database systems. E.g. Thumbs.db is a database only in a specific technical sense; the fact that it is a database is useless to nontechnical users. (I do not believe reading about the history of DBMSs or the design of databases would really provide meaningful context.) For experienced technical users (who would already know it stands for "database",) the database article would simply not provide any useful information (as they would be looking for more specific technical information.) I urge other !voters above to reconsider their redirect !votes. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 04:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the information from .db into Alphabetical list of file formats (A–E), which may be more suitable redirect. —rybec 16:56, 10 August 2013 (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.