Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ERef

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 of the debate was delete. Clear consensus established. Punkmorten 09:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ERef, PRef, VRef[edit]

Three duplicative articles on a NN product by a NN company. Company website is an ad for a bartending DVD. ERef is their term for the MPEG version available for download. -- JLaTondre 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable spamvertisement. --Hetar 01:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Hetar. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 01:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn as per nom. Kuru ^talk 04:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These may be trademarked terms but none of the articles contain a discussion regarding the notability of the software; WP:SOFTWARE refers. (aeropagitica) 07:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Notability essay states: This is an essay representing the opinion of some editors but by no means all or even most editors. This is not a policy or guideline. - TRDriver 07:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User Anthonycaporale's only edits before this AFD were, you guessed it, ERef, PRef and VRef. Punkmorten 09:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets Notability criteria #3 and #4 for software - Whangdoodle 08:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is Whangdoodle's only contribution, and is most likely a sockpuppet. --light darkness^(talk) 11:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anthonycaporale. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Improve Notability or Delete. The second paragraph gives the impression that the file type is widely used, but does not explicitly say so. The only reference is the developer. The developer is an invalid software article reference. Cdcon 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 04:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts | (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like spamadvertisment--Porturology 02:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into one article MadCow257 03:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just unnotable AdSpamCruft Deiz 04:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. If it's notable later, allow re-creation of article.--Vercalos 04:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-05 05:24Z
Delete as vile, rotten, smelly spamvertising. dbtfz ^talk 08:39, 5 March 2006 (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.