Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Image Format (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 delete. W.marsh 21:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Image Format[edit]

Neither of this page's supposed subjects is notable or seems likely to establish notability in the near future. Jamesmusik 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~- ~~This just survived an AfD less than a week ago. Can we give it a chance?~~(Changing vote to Delete after later explanations, and due to the fact that the first mention is proprietary, and the second explanation listed on the article is for a format that never saw the light of day -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 18:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)) -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has had the same problems ever since it was first deleted nearly a year ago. If no one has come forth with something establishing notability since then, I don't know how long we're supposed to wait. Jamesmusik 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first delete appears to have been a speedy G11 as advertising, right? -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MagicISO part of the article still has no references other than adverts by the creator, so that still applies. The other file format is clearly non-notable and that has not been challenged on either the talk page or the previous AfD. Jamesmusik 18:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither file format is notable. The previous AfD was not allowed to complete — it was speedy closed in under 48 hours ~~with a reason claiming that the AfD w~~as a "content dispute" — incorrectly as far as I can tell, as lack of notability is not a content dispute. -- intgr ^#%@! 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the first nomination, the discussion on the talk page was on whether the article should have been about the proprietary filesystem format or the IETF standard; as a result, a nomination based on the notability of the second subject was actually a content dispute (on whether the article should have been more on the first or the second subject). That's why I closed the first AfD as a content dispute. I have not closed this one because this time notability of both subjects is questioned. Tizio 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok, thanks for the explanation. -- intgr ^#%@! 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nom. Useless article. Dalejenkins 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – My vote on the first Afd was to keep and rework to be about the file format, providing that verifiable sources could be found. Well, they haven't been, and they don't look likely to appear any time soon. I agree that neither subject is notable. —GrimRevenant 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fully expect Uifan to recreate the page fairly quickly via one IP address or another. Does anyone think it be pre-emptively salted (if deleted, of course), or should we worry about that when it happens? —GrimRevenant 05:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say RPP if it happens. No sense in stuffing beans, right? -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 05:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already happened, over and over again — the only reason the page remained about the IETF standard for so long is that it was protected, see logs, history. -- intgr ^#%@! 07:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'll defer to you on that recommendation. You seem to know more about the history of this subject and those closely involved. Delete and salt, since the challenge is to the subject's (im)possible future of notability. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 20:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Internet fax and replace with a dab page with history intact. Problems with spamy additions should be dealt with by preventative measures; not removing information. It is notable as it made it through the RFC process, and RFC 3250 uses the same mimetype. John Vandenberg 20:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UIF did not make it through the RFC process - it was abandoned fairly early on in the draft stages. 76.21.33.66 05:09, 8 June 2007 (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.