Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MDX (file format)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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; doesn't appear to demonstrate any notability. Black Kite 07:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MDX (file format)

edit
MDX (file format) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, while it may be an actual file type, it really doesn't require its own article. Perhaps it could be merged if an appropriate article was located for it, but it currently isn't notable enough to get its own. FusionMix 00:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Perhaps we could merge it into an article with this, provided it isn't deleted. What do people think? FusionMix 23:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge, while it may currently not have sources, it is an important format because of its use by Blizzard in many of its RTS games. The article is informative and it is valuable for those interested in the inner workings of games. This isn't an oddball format by some company no one has heard of, this is Blizzard Entertainment. Rilak (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no references, how can you claim its notable? And why should we believe that? After all, just because the game is notable and the company is notable does not make this notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of sticking a delete tag on every single article which has no references, why don't you find some? There are thousands of articles with a tag that says that it "contains unverified information that should be referenced, please help." I don't see why that you can claim that it is not notable just because there are no references now and because you have not heard of it. Please see the talk pages in one of the kinds of articles, I've added detailed rationale for its inclusion. Rilak (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, there are thousands, and we should work tirelessly to elimintate that kind of stuff, by cleaning articles, rewriting, sourcing, and yes deleting. Just because many articles suck doesn't mean this one is ok to keep being non-notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just becuase it is a 'difficult' task, it does not mean that you take the easy way out and delete it. Notify the appropriate editors and they will fix whatever concerns you may have. Rilak (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the concern is lack of notability, this is the fix. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless a source explicitly says something is "notable", it all comes down to personal opinion — and even then it's just an opinion we can attribute to someone. In my opinion, this file format is notable. --Pixelface (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is the whole point of what I am saying; it is NEVER a personal opinion. Either there are references or there aren't, and people have to accept that fact one way or another, for keep or delete. There are currently no references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - individual file formats aren't generally notable unless there's clear evidence that they're widely used and/or important, preferably from reliable sources. The same applies to .BLP. It's possible that a combined article on the file formats used by the WarCraft games could be notable, but I certainly don't think we need an article on each of them. Terraxos (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Proprietary file formats used by a single developer in its products are not encyclopedic subjects. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Hate to be in the minority here, however if we do a Google News search, as shown here, [1], we see that the file format is covered by reliable – independent – 3 rd source – and creditable sources. At worst case, this piece should be merged. Personally, I think keep. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is confusion here (at least in GHITS terms) as there is a nearly-obsolete MDX format that was part of dBase (multiple index file). It has nothing to do with the Blizzard MDX. I don't think either is independently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – your right about the DBase – In fact that caught my eye when I was searching for articles. However, though I did not look at all the pieces in the search, I believe the format discussed in the article under this Afd, was mentioned several times. Will look later and reassess. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 21:22, 30 March 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MDX_(file_format)&oldid=1086364240"