Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple file verification


 * 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 no consensus. Steal This File Sharing Book seems to provide enough content to write an article on, though there have been no further comments in the third week. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Simple file verification

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Notability (software) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar, this file format exists but I am not seeing any WP:SIGCOV or otherwise claims of significance. Can anyone rescue this? Is there something salvageable here? Otherwise, at best, a redirect to List of file formats might be the least destructive option. - alas, as far as I can tell, that article doesn't even mention .sfv, and neither does the List of filename extensions (S–Z), which really doesn't bode well here... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Does not pass the General notability guideline. --KonsTomasz (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC) blocked sock
 * Trim and Merge to Warez scene, the only article that links to it in earnest. The bunch of "what a checksum is" should be removed, leaving just the example and a concise description of format. Recommend using citations "DancesWithGrues" brought up in talk page.--Artoria2e5 🌉 14:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * weak Trim and merge per Artoria2e5/Artoria providing I'm not doing it.  I was trying to think of a use case involving fixed length files and couldn't find one and otherwise would have !voted delete or simply not taken any interest, but I am just able persuaded by the trim and merge.  If redirected to Important "Simple File Verification (SVF) mentioned on the target.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but i'd also be happy to see a merge result. This book appears to have coverage over three pages, just enough to write a meaningful article.  <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. It only gets a mention in the journal articles and books you can preview via Google search. I couldn't preview the book Spinningspark provided. Even if the source provides significant coverage, that is only one source, so it still fails WP: SIGCOV. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that the book's subject is the acquisition of copyrighted material using file-sharing applications, and its title is literally "Steal This File Sharing Book", I think we'd be remiss to not avail ourself of the opportunity. jp×g 21:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: it was fairly easy to find a copy of the book mentioned by Spinningspark, which provides enough information to reference what the article says. There was a pretty extensive section of external links to utilities, which vanished from the article at some point, which I also restored (it may need to be trimmed, but at least some of it ought to be helpful). Not sure if this changes anyone's !vote, but I think it's worth throwing out there. jp×g 22:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 22:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.