Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.sch (file extension)

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. (disregarding nominator's !vote as a blocked LTA sock) Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.sch (file extension)[edit]

[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)

The article is a list of indiscriminate items. It lists six unrelated apps, all of which use the same three letters for their otherwise different file formats.

A template has erroneously identified this page as a set index article, defined as "a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name". However, I wouldn't call "Microsoft Schedule", "Altium", and "Protel" similar names.

Update: Since this nomination, it has come to my attention that two of the items listed in this short laundry list are not apps at all; Altium is a company and Protel is its former name. A product named "Protel" in not listed in Altium § Products or the article's sole source. So, the designations "old versions" and "some versions" are inaccurate. In the absence of reliable sources, we don't know what else is bogus.

Update 2: The author of the page has since then changed both entries, so that they point to Altium Designer. Still, it is one product, no sources, and the original concern of not being a list of barely related items with no educational value.

flowing dreams (talk page) 04:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. flowing dreams (talk page) 04:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. flowing dreams (talk page) 04:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. This is not an indiscriminate list of items but an article about the file extension ".sch", which is used by several ECAD programs for schematics. Actually, some of the programs in the list are even related (Protel and Altium) and use(d) variations of the same file format, thereby invalidating the nominator's claim, they were unrelated.

Depending on how much work will be put into the article it could become a full-blown article or remain a set list or trunced down to a disambiguation page. The reason why it cannot be changed back into a redirect (as it originally was) is because multiple ECAD programs use .sch as a file extension so there is no primary link target. The reason why deleting it would be an exercise in futility is because the article helps readers running into this file extension to select the correct application using this file extension in order to learn more about it. As design files are often interchanged, running into this scenario without knowing the program beforehand is a common scenario. The article name .sch is unlikely to collide with many other meanings, so there is no point in deleting it to make room for an article about a different topic. We have similar small articles about other file extensions for the same purpose of helping to disambiguate them and aid navigation. Deleting it would be destroying a piece of Wikipedia's infrastructure while gaining absolutely nothing for it in return.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please make up your mind: Is it an article or a set index list? If it is an article, you have to deal with Wikipedia:Notability, which is lacking. As for "the nominator's claim, they were unrelated", it is actually the article's claim. It reads: "all using different file formats". And since you're the writer of the article, it is you who have said it. So, the claim that get invalidated is yours. flowing dreams (talk page) 05:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, in the current state it is a set index - this gives the most flexibility for further article work for now. But it could be reworked into a full-blown article over time or trunced down to a disambiguation page. But that's something that can be decided upon by contributors on the article's talk page and not a reason to nominate it for deletion.

Regarding the claim, the wording could be improved but is not incorrect as it is.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is bogus. It just comes apparent that you are not familiar with those EDA programs (the programs are typically referred to just as Protel and Altium for simplicity). That's not a problem, but your somewhat aggressive-demanding undertone is: Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and while it can be helpful for readers to comment on weaknesses in articles or missing information (on article talk pages, not by drawing the articles to deletion processes), in most cases the contributors already know about it and even might have plans how to improve the articles, but just had not enough time to research and/or add the new information yet. That's why anyone is encouraged to improve articles, including you. Together, and over time, the quality of articles will rise. But that's a lot of work, and it will take years.

(BTW. I moved your "update" down for chronology, because it was a significant modification of the original nomination, and if it would stay before the other comments, they could look as if they were out of context.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and WP:PRODUCT. The topic does not have significant and independent coverage mulitple reliable sources. I agree that Wikipedia is not a platform for indiscriminate information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Set indexes, disambiguation pages and redirects don't need any references at all, in fact they are even forbidden on the latter two types. Also, disambiguation pages don't need to be notable, they exist to aid navigation from ambiguous entries (like a file extension here) into related articles. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply here (neither does WP:PRODUCT) - in fact, WP:NOTLINK even explicitly excludes disambiguation pages and lists: "Internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation". So, it's perfectly okay to list the various EDA tools associated with file extension .sch here. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as perWP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is not any notable file-extension. People in the software industry can make custom file-extensions according to their needs. This seems one of these. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this is the very nature of file extensions, but this does not make them non-notable. The opposite is true, they are notable because they are used by various programs (in this cases even many for which we have articles, thus even more notable). But either way, notability is not even a requirement for disambiguation pages and WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply to them either (see WP:NOTLINK). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. The consensus above is, rightly, that there isn't a notable use for the extension. This means there shouldn't be an article in this space. But it's likely that someone who doesn't know what a .sch file is, and finds one, might look for more information in an encyclopaedia. They should find a disambiguation page that enables them to find that information. The "article" in its current form is nearly a disambiguation page already. And of course, disambiguation pages aren't subject to notability requirements.—S Marshall T/C 21:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above already, I would not object changing this set index into a disambiguation page. The difference is small. What matters IMO is that there is an entry at this location to catch the file extension and help users navigate into the various articles. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how we can fulfill the WP:DABMENTION requirements here. Half of these don't even a source. flowing dreams (talk page) 02:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is very easy to fulfill DABMENTION with a sentence like "This EDA tool uses the file extension .sch to store schematics" added to the articles. That would certainly be useful and I would not object to it at all, but is more a topic related to a discussion on article improvement rather than for AfD. Our MOS states that the purpose of disambiguation pages is to aid navigation, and that while we have some standard formats how to present the information, we are also free to choose other presentations if they serve the purpose better. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SCH as disambiguation. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would be a possibility as well, but given that there are several different entries for ".sch" already, I think it deserves an entry of its own. Also, the disambiguation page for "SCH" will likely grow considerably over time, so it's good to keep sub-groups separate. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we can find a source for them, add those info to the corresponding articles and fulfill the WP:DABMENTION requirements, maybe. flowing dreams (talk page) 02:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a set index. This seems to fit the type well - "a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name". "A circuit schematic file [used] by various electronic design automation programs" is actually quite specific, and distinctions within such subsets is what a set index is for. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elmidae and Matthiaspaul.4meter4 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Firstly this is not a notable file extension. Secondly, this article is absolutely empty, as it only lists softwares that use ".sch", rather than telling the readers what is sch file. Moreover, this article is weak in citations as it relies on one single source.WikiAviator (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a normal article (although it could possibly become one in the distant future - but this is not an alternative right now). As a set index or disambiguation page it does not need to have any citations as all (they are even forbidden on disambiguation pages). Also, disambiguation pages don't need to be notable, their purpose is to aid navigation to articles related to the topic of disambiguation, in this case a commonly used file extension. Also, the very fact that this file extension is used by quite a number of EDA CAD tools for schematics establishes the need for disambiguation, because people will run into this extension and try to figure out what it is and which tools can be used to open the files. Not offering them the choice of links to related articles would be a disservice to our readers. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I think this might be reworkable into a bona fide article, potentially as a disambiguation. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator Flowing dreams has been blocked as a sock. 11:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep: Per Matthiaspaul, Elmidae, 4meter4 Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:14, 29 October 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.