Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXGM (FourCC)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

DXGM (FourCC)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Failure to comply with Wikipedia notability guideline due to lack of significant coverage, as defined by the guideline. Fleet Command (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, for three reasons. First, it's non-notable&mdash;DXGM is just a four-character code, and FourCCs do not have their own Wikipedia articles. Because there is nothing to write about four characters. It is probably the only FourCC having its own article (by mistake, since the original author confused FourCCs with codecs). Second, DXGM is a very exotic, obscure FourCC (so if there is a FourCC deserving its own article, it is not DXGM). Third, the article is unverifiable, no reliable sources can be found.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX but WP:N → WP:RS!Fleet Command (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was not that DXGM should not have its own article because other FourCCs don't have it either&mdash;what I meant was that we don't have separate articles for other FourCCs because having a separate article on FourCC is nonsense (as FourCC is nothing else than just four characters). That's why FourCCs do not deserve their own Wikipedia articles.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. A separate article for this seems unwarranted, but a table of some FourCCs like this may be suitable for inclusion in the FourCC article (DXGM is listed there). It appears   it's just a MPEG-4 Part 2 profile. Pcap  ping  14:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there could be a FourCC table or article. As for DXGM&mdash;yes, it is probably one of many MPEG-4 Part 2 FourCCs (various companies like to use their own FourCC for standard MPEG-4 ASP video, for example digital camera manufacturers&mdash;it is always one and the same format, but for some reason, they do not want it to be marked as such, so that it does not work with "normal" players). But it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find any acceptable information on the DXGM FourCC&mdash;Wikipedia requires more reliable sources than discussion forums or wikis.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the people that commented there were the VLC Player developers, and the source code confirms what they said. But this is a minor issue to be discussed somewhere else. The current article is pretty much a WP:NOTHOWTO violation, and there's little salvageable material in it: even lonely the ref is useless. Pcap ping  18:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Although I declined a proposed deletion, because I thought the article was too controversial for such a deletion due to its history, I agree that it should be deleted. What I'm particularly concerned about is at the opening of the article where it says that this is an "undocumented" codec. This implies that there is no way to verify the accuracy of the information, and considering the lack of sources I think that's a real problem. --  At am a  頭 18:37, 8 January 2010 (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.