Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of graphics file formats


 * 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. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 17:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Comparison of graphics file formats

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * A mundane list article lacking a notable topic per GNG, and appears to be synthesis - fails WP:SAL, which says, "stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as WP:V, NOR, NPOV...".
 * Wikipedia is not a repository, and is not a catalog or a directory, and is also not a platform for promotion --- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * My first instinct would be to move to List of image file formats (and trim the unreferenced cruft if needed be). Image file formats is, obviously, a notable topic, and the individual file formats are notable as a group (not just individually); if restricted to the formats created by software with their own WP page, the scope is not too large. I disagree with the nomination, and think the topic fully meets WP:SAL.
 * However, Image file formats is already a list-like article. There is quite a large overlap between the prose article and the list. I am not sure how the content would best be organized. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion but support tidying up. There's a good deal of information presented in this article that isn't (readily) available in Image file formats. It could clearly do with a bit of work (e.g. a vector/raster indicator in the first table as well as the second, perhaps as a highlight in the 1st column). But the tabular format is useful, especially for the second table which has less overlap with the prose article.  Deletion seems like a step too far; as a minimum the "technical details" table could be merged into Image file formats, but really some better integration is needed, including reducing the list sections of that article. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'll second Tigraan's and ChrisHodgesUK's views. The content of this article is a suitable WP list, so moving it to List of image file formats would be a better title. Yes, it duplicates material in Image file formats, but that article focuses on major formats (e.g., Image file formats) and then just lists minor formats (Image file formats). That article could cover the main formats and features (and the reasons behind them &mdash; leaving gritty details to individual format articles) and then point to this article's more inclusive list of formats. That would make IFF less list-like and push it toward a more general overview. Glrx (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2016 (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.