Deletion of Archive eXchange Format

Comment: as #C11 unambiguous promotion or #C12 unambiguous copyright infringement; article creator may pick one or both. ;-)  In either case, no prior good version to revert to.  If {{User|Bcampano}} is the creator of the file format, then this is blatantly  promotion of his own work.  And whether this user is the creator or not, the article is blatant cut-and-paste from http://www.openaxf.org/technical-details.php which contains no license, and the article creator gives no indication of permission to reuse.  (And if one assumes the article creator wrote the website and is licensing it by posting it here, then it's back to speedy for  again.)  Failing all that, '''|Userfy or Delete''' as the article would have to be rewritten (for copyright reasons) and probably remain a long-term stub; it has no sources (let alone ones that establish notability); it is about a new thing just released in the last 2 weeks; the very few sources mentioned in AfD seem to be close to subject-sourced pass-throughs; and the claims of potential notability in this AfD seem to be .  It's worth pointing out that even well-known organizations, that issue notable standards, also issue a lot of non-notable standards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:CSD||WP:COI||WP:SPAM||WP:USERFY||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: unsourced article on an apparently obscure, and at this stage largely theoretical, file system. No substantive reliable third party sourcing identifiable through Google News/Books/Scholar (blog posts being neither particularly substantial nor particularly reliable), no apparent evidence that it has been widely implemented. If, at some later stage, it achieves widespread and/or notable adoption, and thus coverage, we can recreate the article -- for the time being (and probably some years to come)  would seem to apply
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: According to the article, it was launched at a tradeshow, TODAY.  That it hasn't received any signficant coverage by reliable sources, or any coverage of any kind, should not come as a surprise to anyone.  You can't |verify that which does not exist
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)