Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portable Database Image

: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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to List of file formats or a desired subsection therein. Star Mississippi 02:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

=[[:Portable Database Image]]=

:{{la|1=Portable Database Image}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Portable Database Image}})

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:*Speedy Keep by criteria 1 and 3. No valid deletion rationale provided. WP:NSOFT is an essay, not a guideline. Please provide clear + valid rationale for these nominations @Clenper.

:* I spent a large part of yesterday researching previous nominations that used NSOFT as rationale that were not eligible for soft deletion due to declined prod. At least 2 were likely notable due to use in teaching or common use in Java programming. The lack of justification in nominations is placing an unnecessary burden on other editors. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:*:Could you provide at least a reference to demonstrate this article notability? Clenpr (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

delete Two book hits, one in German, indicates this isn't a significant thing. The heck with NSOFT: it baldly fails GNG. Mangoe (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Mangoe}}: Language of sources is absolutely irrelevant for notability. MarioGom (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You are ignoring the number "two". Also, this indicates the lack of traction in either language. Mangoe (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per WP:SK#3. Vague rationale. Plus WP:NSOFT is an essay not a guideline. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 06:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:Do you still think the article meets Wikipedia general notability guideline criteria? Clenpr (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to List of file formats. There are enough sources to describe basic facts. As far as I can tell, all of them are either not independent or, when independent, just passing mentions. So it does not meet WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List of file formats#Application packages per MarioGom. My own search came up with passing mentions but nothing establishing notability. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:05, 11 May 2025 (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.