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. No prejudice against recreation if a decently, reliably sourced article could be written. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BMF Bitmap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In short, this article looks like a collection of random rambling because:

1. It has no source except two external links that are themselves very confused! (Wow!)
2. It is filled with original research and guesses.
3. It does not know what it is talking about; the lead introduces multiple independent variations of the subject and the body speaks about one without telling us exactly which.

Fleet Command (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would vote against deletion. Let's see if we can break this down from a more technical POV.

news: none - it is a proprietary file format that no one can use except the original inventor / licensees (Corel and IMSI apparently)

books: none - it would only be documented in the User Manual of the related program(s) (if even that)

scholar: none - it is a proprietary format; if published, Corel / IMSI could and would sue the publisher

free images: none - by definition, Corel and IMSI images would be copyrighted and protected by their respective creators

Does this mean the format does not exist? No. Taking the original arguments point by point:

1. The external links referred to are both examples of file extension documentation sites. As is typical with such sites, they include any and all references to the file extension under discussion (BMF). They both find the same information. They are both supported by online ads and thus are loaded down with ads; a fact of life that doesn't even bear discussing any further. There is no "original" source because the major user, Corel, deigns to even admit the format exists now they are not using it in a current product. IMSI at least includes "BMF" in their knowledgebase but no longer supports the format as of version 16 of their floor plan software (2011).

2. The reason for the so-called "original research" and "guessing" is that it is the only information still available. Corel only admits the format exists under duress and will not release the format (probably for legal reasons of some sort). IMSI had a slightly different flavor which they supported until 2011 as noted in (1). At least IMSI mentioned it in their knowledgebase (as noted before).

3. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Paragraph one lists what the format is and who the major users are. Paragraph two describes the format owner's current plans for the format. I highly doubt that Corel is going to make any quotable formal announcement in the New York Times that they've screwed hundreds and thousands of paying customers by refusing to support a format they used specifically for the purpose of proprietizing literally millions of graphic images. Paragraph three lists the one known non-Corel program that purports to support the format and the author's experience with same.

These are the facts that are known; that haven't been lost as of yet. Perhaps someone is not happy with the light in which Corel is cast? Does that mean it is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? I hardly think so. In fact, one would think that this is the ideal place for such an article before the knowledge / information / the 411 / whatever the kids are calling it these days disappears forever. Mainly, there is/was a file format of this kind with the extension of BMF and it was used by thus and so. Could the article be improved? Certainly. In fact, one could differentiate this article into multiple articles because Corel and IMSI incorporate slight changes to the actual byte arrangement in the BMF files they create. Is that something we should pursue? To what purpose?

Frankly, IMHO this article should remain as-is [or at the very most "touched" slightly based on the latest information presented in this article]. There is sufficient information there to satisfy any reasonable curiosity -- vis-á-vis the BMF format -- so why don't we leave this sleeping dog snoring and move on to things that actually matter.

And that is my somewhat verbose 2 cents / 0.0145677034 Euros on the subject. JimScott (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: First and foremost, please stick to standard formatting of AfD. Do not assume ownership of the entire discussion by using a formatting that makes you argument stand out.

  Second, I see that you do not deny that this article fails to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability. But what you do not know is that the fact that you like the article does not make it worthy of inclusion.

  Third, those external links refer to entirely different things, not the subject of the article. In another word, they are worthless linkspam.

  Fleet Command (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd go with delete on the basis that we have notability & verifiability criteria to adhere to. I found JimScott's 0.0145677034 Euros above to be interesting and if we could get reliably verify it all (which would probably prove notability) then I'd say keep for sure. But if we can't, we can't. And that's my 359 dollars (Canadian) on the matter. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Format used in notable products. Keeping article insure complete coverage of graphics file formats by WP. --Kvng (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First, do you have a source for this assertion? Second, notability is not inherited. Fleet Command (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per verifiability, we have no verifiable information aside from the fact that it is a bitmap file format used in some applications. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sources don't appear to exist and WP:OR would appear to be needed to write even a decent stub on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2011 (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.