Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parchive
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 for and , they are just parts of an essay, not policy nor guidelines. By the way,  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
— User:Cyclopia, 00:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:ITEXISTS||WP:USEFUL||WP:USEFUL (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)