Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DcVD

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DcVD

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article fails WP:GNG, I did WP:BEFORE and couldn't find anything of note about this. There are a few mentions about it in forums but nothing serious or useful. If someone finds sources for this please ping me because it will be seriously impressive if someone does. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, I cannot find notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. i suggested in rfd that this article might have been useful, but its final word on the dcvd format is "it probably exists lmao" (and it cites this specific article, seemingly in this diff, as an example of flimsy research, which is really funny)... and also i guess the dreamcast junkyard is a blog, and thus not usable as a source in the first place cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as noted in the RfD, given the era of the technology it is very likely that the majority of sources will be offline and (and still within copyright) so no amount of googling will find them. This should not be deleted without even an attempt to locate them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that an admin of all people would make such assumptions as "there was not even an attempt to locate print sources". I am unsure what would give you the impression that neither me nor cogsan did such a thing, it is de facto accusing us of incompetence.

In fact I did trawl the Internet Archive and found zilch (besides, at least, other things whose acronym is DCVD but are not mentioned on Wikipedia). There really is hardly a mention of it anywhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'll give you this one; nothing i said here or in rfd suggested outright that i did the big research, but i did as early as in my first comment there, and found as much reliable info then as vulpes and zxcvbnm did now (which is to say that i found nothing). on the other hand, you said in rfd that you found some potentially reliable stuff within 2 minutes, but nothing came from that, so... can i see the sauce? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent point @Thryduulf, any ideas where I should start looking? I don't mind putting in the work but I will admit I don't really know where to start here. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr vulpes Unfortunately I don't really either, technology magazines of the era may have something but as I don't read them now and didn't at the time that's just a guess. Patents (if the technology was patented or used others' patents, I don't know) would presumably give useful coverage with which to expand the article but may not count as secondary? If people write journal articles about this sort of technological development that could be another source, but again I don't know if they do. Based on Talk:Retrocomputing and Talk:Vintage computers, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing seems to be the relevant project so folks there may be able to help more. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good I'll take a look later tonight and see if there's anything I can find. I was kind of amazed that there was just nothing when I did WP:BEFORE. Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This era of technology is very well covered in the Internet Archive's collection of digitized books and technical manuals. It isn't mentioned once there. There isn't enough content for a dedicated article and I don't even see enough to warrant a redirect to another article by current sourcing standards, hence why the article is orphaned. For the sources mentioned in the RfD, both cric.co.jp and "The Dreamcast Junkyard" are not reliable, secondary sources. czar 21:38, 5 October 2024 (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.