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. I am not convinced that the sources currently present are sufficient for notability, but no consensus exists to delete. Evil saltine (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parchive[edit]

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

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

DELETE. This is not a notable file format. The only sources cited are a school website and sourceforge? Um, No. JBsupreme (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here from SourceForge, where I saw PAR/PAR2 mentioned and wondered what that was. So I hit Wikipedia, and there the article was -- and sure enough, on it, also a badge added courtesy of yet another deletionist's self-gratifying initiative to convince themselves of their crucial importance to this project. I would have been disappointed not to find the answer to my question what PAR/PAR2 are at Wikipedia. Of course a deletionist thinking "well, I've never heard of this, so it can't be important" will never understand. Yes, that's kinda the point. Articles containing only self-evidently obvious information that everybody already knows -- such articles are dramatically less useful than articles that you can actually, you know, learn something from. No, I'm not interested in your response or predictable forthcoming use of more templates. I understand though, that it makes some people feel really good to be given the opportunity to play policeman. 188.192.112.34 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (Speedy) Keep - like the person above said, simply a case of somebody didn't know what it was. Google "PAR2 files" or see any binary group on Usenet. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your motion to "speedy keep", while completely invalid, has been noted. JBsupreme (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please leave any comment on validity or invalidity of !votes on your AfD to admins, especially if you provide no justification for your comments. Such comments dance on the edge of WP:CIVIL. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, linking to google searches is lazy, but essentially all of these are relevent. —Korath (Talk) 04:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh, I really do hate to go down a list of comments in an AFD and dispute them point-by-point (and yes I realize that is exactly what I am doing) but I'm really disappointed in your comment. Relevant or not, I have carefully examined the first few pages of the Google search you linked to and none of them contain links to non-trivial coverage of this subject from qualified, reliable third party publications as defined by Wikipedia policy. So lazy, yes. Relevant, not so much in terms of acceptability for citing within an encyclopedia. JBsupreme (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is certainly a relevant topic to Wikipedia. The Parchive format does exist (the whole file format is very well documented) and several implementation do exist (see available source codes). If this is to be deleted, I believe many entries should follow (read all pages describing a file format/program data files), like Odf, XML, ZIP_(file_format) and many many more. So please do NOT DELETE this page. Stijn_Ghesquiere
• POINT OF FACT so far lots of people WP:ILIKEIT but NO ONE HAS SHOWN EVIDENCE OF NON-TRIVIAL COVERAGE BY RELIABLE THIRD PARTY PUBLICATIONS. If that does not change this article can and should be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of fact: Screaming in capital letters does not help your arguments. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you've made exactly zero effort to find such sources yourself. Here's what literally thirty seconds of googling turns up: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Even whatlinkshere would have sufficed to find ten independent implementations (mostly via Comparison of Usenet newsreaders): DAR (Disk Archiver), QuickPar, SmartPAR, BinTube, GrabIt, NewsBin, NewsLeecher, NewsMan Pro, Unison (Usenet client), Usenet Explorer. Please withdraw. —Korath (Talk) 09:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhhh, EXCUSE ME? Please assume good faith for one. Secondly, the sources you are citing are NOT RELIABLE nor are they fit for an encyclopedia. Lets examine them one for one, shall we? ydecode? no. afterdawn, a warez forum, no. warezfaq.com, no. binaries4all.com, again, NO. Nothing you cited is qualified as a reliable source as per WP:RS. Please withdraw your personal attacks. JBsupreme (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Exists, is useful. Hobart (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Hobart, please refer to WP:ITEXISTS and WP:USEFUL. Thanks! JBsupreme (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The IP above is mostly right. As for reliable sources, the concept of reliable source depends very much on the subject. On such pieces of technology, which fall obviously a bit below the mainstream radar, I feel that for example the warezfaq article looks very much like sensible third-party coverage. The google search is enough to establish several hints of notability: the file format is widespread enough for people to use it, share files with it, write about it and asking information on it. As forWP:ITEXISTS and WP:USEFUL, they are just parts of an essay, not policy nor guidelines. By the way, WP:USEFUL says There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". , and this is a case in which such reasoning could reasonably apply. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what else is common sense? Our editorial policies on what constitutes a reliable source, which plays into how we examine the notability of a subject. If there isn't a single example of non-trivial coverage about this subject from a reliable publication, that speaks volumes above all else. JBsupreme (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, it is really necessary to be so noisy about your AfD? You proposed it, we're discussing about it. You already repeated several times your personal point of view on the thing. We have understood it. Now, accept that your point of view is here to be discussed, and wait for the AfD to close. And please keep in mind WP:CIVIL, again. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That said. there are examples of non-trivial coverage. What is reasonably a reliable source depends on the subject, and in this case I'd say there's plenty of reasonable third-party coverage -and a lot of documentation on the fact the format is widespread and used. This also should be considered for notability. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's an essential part of Usenet, and it's conceiving and development is firmly bound to it. Several article refer to teh format anyway. It's used as an example of a Reed–Solomon_error_correction implementation. Also, the page Comparison of Usenet newsreaders will be severly impaired in terms of usability of you delete the PAR column.

I do understand that a encyclopedia is not the same as a journal, and that the articles in it should be reliable. I'm a big supported for the wikipedia project and it's search for quality. However, some common sense is also needed. The PAR file format, as mentioned before, does exist and is very well known, albeit not to the general public. The PAR format certainly has been reviewed in the past in printed computer magazines. I think it would be more appropriate to request references to such printed articles, instead of utterly delete the whole article. It will certainly pop-up again, as it is closely related to the usenet articles and because it's a nice (and well documented) implementation of an error correction algorithm. Stijn_Ghesquiere

• Speedy Keep nom seems unfamiliar with the subject and AfD is not for cleanup. I really would like to see this article expanded and improved as there is plenty of material available on this subject. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar with this subject and our policies. Thanks anyhow. The article doesn't need clean up, it needs deletion. There is no reliable coverage to substantiate it. JBsupreme (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are indeed familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies then you should also be aware that the specification documents hosted on SourceForge such as Parity Volume Set specification 1.0 and Parity Volume Set Specification 2.0 are perfectly acceptable references per WP:SELFPUB in the context in which they are used. As for notability, since you seem to have such a strong interest in this subject, I suggest you go do some homework with Google and improve the article yourself as it is quite clear that this archive format is in extremely widespread use and absolutely meets the notability guideline. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • • So far I see lots of hand waving and zero sources to back it up. I wonder why that is? Actually, I think I know the answer. JBsupreme (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Without sources The WP:BURDEN on those who want to keep material in Wikipedia is to provide reliable sources disproving the rationale given for deletion. I know what PAR files are, but Wikipedia has a requirement that things be notable, not just popular with a niche group. Sometimes good educational material isn't relevant to the purpose of Wikipedia. If this can't be sourced to multiple and independent reliable sources of non-trivial mentions, then this belongs on some other wiki. Miami33139 (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is sourced. I don't get what kind of sources more you need other than those in the article (and those available online as showed above, which should be added). It is no "passing mentions", you find a lot of tutorials etc. online on PAR files. You cannot expect the Times to cover file formats. For example, the gzip article cites almost invariably primary sources. The ZIP (file format) article too, except for some article on a controversy and a NYT one on the author. Do you think that gzip and zip file formats are not notable? That the article needs some help is true, but AfD is not cleanup. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2009 (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.