Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dingoo

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 keep.  Sandstein  19:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dingoo

Dingoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Regretful keep. There does not seem to be anything notable, in the colloquial sense of the word, about this old console. So by my own personal interpretation of what Wikipedia notability should be, I don't see the need for us to have an article here. And the article written isn't very good and there's little evidence anyone will improve it anytime soon. However, doing a Google search uncovers enough independent reviews of this console to meet our actual notability guidelines, and we do -- noncontroversially -- have articles on other equally no-longer-relavant gaming consoles.
  Martinp (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: What exactly is this thing? I don't see a description of what sort of CPU/GPU it has, and the operating system seems to be at odds with the list of similar products which appear to be native Linux boxes. Is this a totally separate product running its own software (mostly?). I really can't tell. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The CPU as listed in the sidebox of the article is correct. To the best of my knowledge, there is no separate GPU; only some CPU-based hardware acceleration of specific media formats, as was common for SoCs of that era. It runs a proprietary embedded OS by default, although an alternative firmware exists in the form of a Dingoo-specific Linux distribution (Dingux). 2001:980:A4CA:1:99F9:A8A6:9FA0:BD3A (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be an off-brand knock off of a

Playstation Vita type device). A lot of smaller companies attempt this sort of thing without much fanfare. While everyone's heard of a "Game Boy", there's lots of little ones out there too that never really take off. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. This device in particular is one of the earliest handheld emulators; released around 2009, before smartphone usage became commonplace, it was notable amongst emulation and media enthusiasts for its ability to play a wide variety ROMs and media files without requiring a conversion step, something that was pretty much unheard of at the time. Relatedly, it became popular amongst homebrew hackers due to the relative ease of running alternative software on it and messing with the firmware. I would say that it's historically notable enough (even if just in a niche) to keep around the article; however, I do feel that there are probably too many unsourced sections. To the best of my knowledge they're all correct, but sourcing them may be difficult, as the vast majority of information around this handheld was obtained through informal channels and published in unofficial places, due to the company itself not having a real presence outside of China. 2001:980:A4CA:1:99F9:A8A6:9FA0:BD3A (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read
    WP:OR. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - Could only find one reliable source article mentioning the Dingoo significantly. Siliconera article. Fails notability standards for Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: There's also a review at TechRadar. Still not enough reliable sources though._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not exactly a good article, but the reviews to use are there - e.g. [1], [2], [3]. Needs work but seems eligible. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:13, 13 November 2017 (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.