Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFA (file format)

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFA (file format)

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

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

The astrotite program was speedily deleted (?!), so I doubt its file format is more notable. Pcap ping 17:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to discussion why the astrotite program was speedily deleted is required before the fate of this article can be deemed. --Zarutian (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no discussion pages for speedy deletes. Claritas (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be restored as the speedy delete apears to be in error. --Zarutian (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The application of WP:CSD#A7 to software should be reserved for "I created this cool program, and posted it on my personal website!!!" situations. More ambiguous cases should receive AFD discussions, so that editors can determine whether the notability guideline is satisfied, or whether a (rare) exception to the guideline is justified by the particular subject matter. Emily Jensen (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if we want to be pedantic about it, software is ineligible for deletion under CSD A7: "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." In practice, technical satisfaction of the CSD's subject matter requirements is less important than the simple question of whether the page constitutes a serious attempt to write an encyclopedia article, or whether it's a clearly non-notable autobiography, obvious spam, etc. Emily Jensen (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the administrator that performed the speedy deletion of this discussion. However, his talk page indicates that he won't be around for another week. Pcap ping 19:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 10:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating astrotite. It was speedily deleted. I filed a DRV, where it was determined that the deleted article is unsourced. Although the speedy aspect of the deletion has been disputed above, I can't find any sources for writing that article either. I've relisted this AfD so there are no complaints about the timing; the clock starts ticking on both articles starting now. Pcap ping 10:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not really possible to consider the speedily-deleted astrotite article for deletion here, as we can't see it. However, judging by the DRV, it sounds like it would have made G11 anyway, and the software's file format can't really be notable if the software itself isn't -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited. From what I see, the format itself has no significant independent coverage. — Rankiri (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Astrotite and AFA (file format): utterly fails WP:GNG. I'm the one who put the speedy tag on Astrotite originally: it was a website and company with no substantial claim of notability. It was blatant WP:Autobiography in my opinion, and its only major claim was that it existed and it was the only software that could use the AFA format, which of course is circular reasoning and not a claim to notability. The rest of it was talky-talk about the software's creator, Vicente Sanchez-Alarcos Blanco, who openly uses the username "Matabyte" in places other than Wikipedia. User:Emily Jensen is correct above: I only tagged the company for speedy because I couldn't find an easy speedy criteria for AFA (file format) so I WP:PRODed it and added a bunch of maintenance templates instead. Matabyte (talk · contribs) then removed my templates (except PROD) and claimed "I'm not the author of the software.If this fix it's enough, delete WP:COI" in the edit summary. 5 days later, 121.84.90.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from Japan "extended" the time on the prod unilaterally; and 6 days after that, 60.56.145.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), from the same ISP in Japan, deleted the PROD with the mysterious summary "deleted unverifiable text". Note that both those IPs have also made updates to Astrotite information, and that Fantiusen.com was registered to Vicente Sanchez-Alarcos Blanco in Japan at the time; he has since taken advantage of "privacy features" at Network Solutions to hide the domain location, but he's definitely in Japan: see his blog; Fantiusen's website: "Please keep in mind that live in another country other than Japan is not a problem applying for a job."; Facebook page that claims "Founded: 2007.02 Japan" on the left but "fundada en el año 1997 por Vicente Sánchez-Alarcos en España" ("founded in the year 1997 by Vicente Sánchez-Alarcos in Spain") on the right; and the license for Astrotite, which says: "By accepting the license agreement, you have the knowledge that all claims and disputes take place within the central courts of Japan." So, yeah: Delete. --Closeapple (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2010.01#Discussion about AFA format file delete. --Closeapple (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this AfD will achieve a more permanent solution to this shameless and not terribly astute self promotion. Pcap ping 22:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The software is non-notable so the file format is also. Joe Chill (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Astrotite has been temp-undeleted now, so you may consult its history in all its glory. Pcap ping 04:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's odd — I'm almost certain I did a speedy tag on Astrotite when I tagged AFA (file format). Maybe it was some earlier incarnation, but I don't see any in the log. Ah well. Maybe I was as sleepy then as I am now. Anyway, you can see even more of the anonymous IPs' edit patterns now. Yay. --Closeapple (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 04:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - File format is reliant on program, and thus deletable. Shadowjams (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having now seen the Astrotite article, I'm happy to stick with my Delete opinion - It should not have been deleted under A7 as it is not web content, but I do think it could be classed under G11 -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:42, 26 April 2010 (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.