Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CMX (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

CMX (file format)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No independent refs in > 2 years. Apparent confusion over the name (CMX vs CME). Crystal ball issues ("details of the specification are not yet public"). A competitor appears to have registered the same name as an apparently unrelated piece of software. Google turns up lots of hits, but none seem to be for this thing. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 00:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 00:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 00:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is actually about Connected media experience. No independent coverage of Connected media experience found. --Kvng (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non notable file format. Shadowjams (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The technical standard being discussed here is still in draft form. Apparently, a few companies got together in 2009 to make a unified standard for digital media, but the effort fizzled and didn't receive any significant press coverage. All I could find was a couple blog entries about it. So, it fails WP:CRYSTAL as well as WP:GNG. However, there is also a file format called CMX, which is used by Corel Draw. That format probably is worthy of an article; it's just not this article. We should wait and let someone start that article from scratch if they choose to. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.