Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HiQualityCD

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. Okay, I think I have to explain this one to avoid any claim of supervote. First, Sidelight12's vote has no compelling rationale to merge (and this is not a vote anyways). Second, although Supernerd11 voted merge his rationale actually aligns with deletion ("I see no reason for it to have its own article"). Third, I usually do a Google search and merge the content myself when closing AfD's as merge, but I found nothing on Google that could back up the text at HiQualityCD were I to add it to Compact disc. So, this was a delete to me. → Call me Hahc21 05:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiQualityCD

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

No assertion of notability; not a new technology, but merely a manufacturing process. ï¿½ (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Compact disc. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 08:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though Merge as above would be acceptable: no indication of notability or reliable sources to be found. It is only a CD made of different materials. If merging were the case, then at any rate non-promotional sources would need to be found, as so far it is supported only by a broken link and an advertisement. BethNaught (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into compact disc. This just seems to be a type of CD, and without enough information for more than a couple of sentences, I see no reason for it to have its own article. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:49, 17 March 2014 (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.