Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double-size VGA

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double-size VGA

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

Propose to redirect to Digital Variable Gain Amplifier

Article uses two sources, one of them a rumor site (WP:V), both do not even mention the article title (OR). Only used in regards to an unannounced product (CRYSTAL). HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the product were generally available, the term wouldn't warrant more than an entry in List of common resolutions. As it is, with apparently no commercially available products available yet, it doesn't even warrant that. JulesH (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby require this nomination for deletion to be called off on the following basis:

nominator intentionally misleads community to think that the term is "Only used in regards to an unannounced product", while he/she knew the opposite [1] before making this nomination.
HVGA (and other similar pages) does not cite sources using the term itself either, and on First-In-First-Out (FIFO) basis, as well as on Wikipedia's uniformity principle, that article, as well as others, should be nominated for deletion first. Nominator willingly ignored uniformity principle.
"rumor site" phrase refers to site's name, while the information cited it not related to rumours and verifiable (by anyone with iPhone); not just opinion cited, but visual/photographic evidence. Wikipedia prohibits only use of such sources in relation to a living person.
Last, but not least, the article got updated with references to actual use of term DVGA, as well as DigiTimes article source which states the resolution -- perfect source by any means. Thus DVGA article is currently much better fits to Wikipedia principles that HVGA article, for example.

It does not principal at all whether DVGA will have standalone worded description or not; there may be forwarding link to List of common resolutions instead of text about resolution and ratio itself. However, nothing warrants deletion of this page, because readers, by entering "DVGA" in Wikipedia, should see that this term may refer to an electric amplifier and video resolution. DVGA page formerly only had automating forwarding link to a digital amplifier. DenisRS (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I mistakenly considered that the page we discuss here is renamed page which formerly called "DVGA", while the page is actually a renamed "DVGA_(disambiguation)" page. Someone moved "disambiguation" essence of the latter page to DVGA page, while renaming "DVGA_(disambiguation)" to "Double-size VGA" and making its content solely focused on term DVGA as graphic resolution, which is of questionable worthiness. After such significant shift of concept, I will take time time to move information to DVGA page. Then Double-size VGA will be empty and nomination for deletion of such excessive page could be resubmitted on perfectly fine basis. DenisRS (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I placed information with updated links of actual use of term as well as with perfectly fit source for resolution to DVGA page. I did not delete the content of Double-size VGA page, though, because it was not my work to put that information there the way it was done before my latest editions. I think that the nomination should be resubmitted (the points I listed above still accurate) to only concern to Double-size VGA, not DVGA, and cite appropriate basis (for example, notability (not enough of), redundancy, excessiveness). DenisRS (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply to DenisRS's points in order. As full disclosure, we discussed the article on his talk page and failed to make any progress.

The fourth iPhone is "unannounced"; its manufacturer (Apple) does not sell, display, or even confirm its existence. All sources are based off of two leaked prototypes. This information is inherently speculative, no matter who reports it.
Two wrongs do not create a right. Compare googling HVGA, which at least shows that the term exists in relation to screen size, and DVGA, which does not. Wikipedia is not bound by FIFO (Wikipedia:FIFO) or some Wikipedia:Uniformity principle. How can I "willingly ignore" something that does not exist?
This information cannot be verified by anyone with an iPhone since it relates only to two leaked prototypes of the unannounced fourth version, which are not available for the public to purchase or examine. The part about living people is simply not true; see WP:SPS, part of the verifiability policy.
Stop comparing it to other articles. We are not talking about the quality of the the article; we are talking (or should be talking) about the subject of the article, DVGA, which cannot even be proven to exist. No source mentions both the terms "DVGA" and "iPhone"; thus connecting them is original research.

Two sources mention it in passing, in tables or lists of other resolutions, as a mathematical extrapolation of VGA, without citing any devices to use it. The three other sources do not mention the term DVGA, and are based on speculation, two prototypes, and "sources from Taiwan-based component makers". While these are sufficient to mention the screen size in passing in the iPhone article, they are not sufficient for a standalone article. In summary, we have violations of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOTABLE, and WP:ORIGINAL. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DenisRS can userfy the article until products that use this standard are released or the ISO officially adopts this as a standard., Racepacket (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2010 (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.