text:
know, pretty much anyone can close an afd and remove the tag from an article when the nominator withdraws and there are no votes to delete, per Speedy keep. But having someone besides the nominator do it is probably good. - Bobet 17:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If everybody is voting keep, I see no reason the nominator can't just close the thing themself. Anybody wishing ot pursue deletion is free to either re-open, or launch a new AFD (as a speedy close, doesn't set a precedent in such cases).  Surely, this is a nice time-saver for everybody.  Often, people make nominations, having no idea of the level of support for an article.  Or they make mistakes, like nominating, when they want an unconsented merge/redirect (like a duplicate article, with a misspelling) or just some general cleanup.  Let's just make things easy. --Rob 18:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, nominators have been known to attempt to control "their" discussions. I've seen too many where the nominator tried to close the discussion in a fit of pique rather than as a result of reasoned discussion.  That just creates more work and dissension when the other participants have to reopen the debate.  I would not say that a nominator closing a discussion is automatically a bad-faith action but I would say that our general advice should encourage letting someone else speedy-close it.  Rossami (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In this case the problem was in aprt that he simply removed the boiler-plate text from the article, without closing the discussion, etc. Anyway, thanks to all who helped and opined, and I've added the Closed-AfD template to the Talk page. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD etiquette
I removed the following sentence from this section: "*Make a good-faith effort to notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article before nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised." I have nominated many articles for deletion, using AfD, prod, and the speedy deletion tags, and never notified anyone. I find the whole process of getting articles deleted to be cumbersome enough without the extra step of notifying the author and then, presumably, waiting around for days for them to respond or whatever. If the original authors should be notified, then Wikipedia's software should do this automatically. I assume someone will revert my change, but please discuss this here after you do so. --Xyzzyplugh 02:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no extra "waiting around". You make the nomination, and notify the user, who has five days, like everybody else.  It avoids somebody coming back after a weak break, to find an article gone for no reason.  Often the creator is able to answer important questions, and fix the article.  That's a good thing, especially for certain topic areas, such as with mainly non-English sources, or requiring specialized knowledge to understand.  --Rob 02:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I misinterpreted it slightly. As written, with the emphasis on "before nominating", it seemed to me that one was supposed to notify the person and then not nominate until they had a chance to respond, which would certainly have been cumbersome.  Still, though, if it's so important that the original author be notified, why doesn't the software do this automatically?  It's a waste of everyone's time making people do this manually.  And is it really necessary for some vandal to be notified that his "bob johnson is a fag" article is about to be speedy deleted, or for some teenager to be notified that his garage band article is up for deletion? --Xyzzyplugh 02:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I revised it, to be less demanding, in insisting "before". I think often talking to the creator before is good, but circumstances vary.  I think even in obvious delete cases, like a kid's garage bands, its good to notify them, as it avoids them just remaking it when it goes "missing", it helps educate them about wikipedia, and it promotes good faith if worded properly.  We might not want a particular article, but we still want them.   I think you're db-attack example is something to be addressed on WP:CSD, not here.  I think in such cases, a message should be given to the creator, warning them not to repeat it.  As for getting a bot to do the notices, that would be great.  --Rob 02:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * To me this has always implied article ownership. No one owns an article just because they made the first edit... right? You shouldn't have to run deletion by the "owner" of the article. If you want to, fine... sometimes it does make sense... but only in situations where you aren't sure about something and think they can help. -W.marsh 03:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Notifying somebody you're going to try and delete something, is not conceding ownership, as the deletion will go forward regardless. Anybody who thinks they "own" an article, probably won't need notice, as they're probably watching "their articles" like a hawk.  Notification is more for the person who made something and doesn't think about it every day since (but might still have helpful input).  A common reason for AFDs, is lack of sources.  The creator is almost always in the best position to add such sources, which can then be reviewed.  Often, something isn't findable in Google, but once the sources are cited, it's easily verifiable by others.  Also, if somebody made a really bad article, surely they should be told, before they proceed to make a slew more, each to be deleted.  Why not prevent such articles from being created?  --Rob 03:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's a bad idea to notify. Just the idea of forcing it rubs me the wrong way, and I still say it implies ownership (forcing it creates a right to notification, and why do they get special rights concerning "their" articles unless they "own" them?)  I see it as optional, but definently strongly encouraged, to notify. --W.marsh 03:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I put it in after the discussion above. The purpose is to get someone who might have a clue about the article, so it doesn't get nominated by one person on the basis of their own ignorance and voted "delete" by three others on the basis of their ignorance. If I'd been notified of the particularly clueless nomination of Danese Cooper I could have dealt with it quickly, for instance - David Gerard 12:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * See WP:AGF, you are assuming a lot of bad faith of AfD nominators in that paragraph. --W.marsh 15:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I am not assuming bad faith: I am stating the obvious, that the nomination was sincerely clueless. That is, I am questioning the nominator's judgement, based on clear evidence it is defective

 * I see this argument a lot, that almost any criticism of AFD is somehow "assuming bad faith" even when it's clearly nothing of the sort. As far as I can tell, the clueless use it as an excuse not to listen. Unfortunately, I've yet to come up with a euphemism for cluelessness that gets through to the clueless - David Gerard 14:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Ascribing ignorance and cluelessness to someone to explain a wrongful deletion is the opposite of assuming bad faith. You could say "Tony Sidaway hasn't a clue about organic chemistry" and this would be a pretty valid criticism of my decision to say "nn del" in response to the listing for deletion of an article on phosgene.  It's not exactly civil to use those words, but if it can be put nicely it's a very Wikipedian way of responding to otherwise inexplicable nominations and deletions. --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Ascribing ignorance when it occurs isn't assuming bad faith, but assuming ignorance still is. The assumption that lots of nominators are going to be ignorant seems like the assumption of bad faith.  At the very least, as you said, it's not very civil.  In practice, it's also an incorrect assumption - the dramatic majority of nominators know what they're doing and meet with little objection, their nominations are uncontroversial. --W.marsh 16:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Assuming ignorance given gross evidence of ignorance is not. You seem to be bending over backwards here to look for something to take offence at so as to ignore what I'm saying - David Gerard 14:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, but it's Assume Good Faith, not Assume I'm Right. David was specifically addressing that dramatic minority of fundamentally ignorant nominations that don't get caught by someone non-ignorant. The onus should be on the nominator to demonstrate the basis of knowledge, e.g.

 * "Phosgene - Delete - I'm an organic chemist at Foobar University and I know this is a crank fringe theory that's been going around."KWH

Is there any reason not to require somebody nominating something for lack of notability to actually explain how the person or subject is non-notable, and demonstrate some attempt to research the issue? u p p l a n d 08:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I always did that... check AMG, check Google, check IMDB, check webpages, make a common sense argument. Alas many people consider 'delete nn --~ ' an okay nomination.  Perhaps not surprisingly, when I last checked, about 95% of my nominations ended in deletes, so a good argument "helps". It boils down to how important people think it is to make a good argument... but I don't think trying to force people into it is going to work.  Encourage it yes, but forcing it isn't practical.  Are we going to delist all noms someone deems "not researched enough"?  Who is that someone?  Way too arbitrary to enforce.  --W.marsh 15:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD Etiquette: vested interest
In one of the AfDs, one of the contributors to the article was voting to keep and had not signed his post. Another person noted he had a vested interest in the article, which was misunderstood to be a monetary interest. Possibly there should be a Vested interest page created (or subsection to WP:OWN) to link from the sentence "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the deletion policy."? In any case, I noticed there was a Vested interest stub and a Vested interests stub, so I suggested a merge on those. Schizombie 05:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm..I feel it's normally pretty obvious if someone's got a vested interest in the page, because the only people with said interest who usually come around to vote on an AfD are the article's creator or sockpuppets of that creator. However, I believe the AfD process is a process of consensus in which the bureaucrat who comes around to close out a discussion makes a decision on what the final result of the debate was. If the person with a vested interest makes a good point about the article, I think it deserves to be heard on AfD. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 07:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The usual practice is to add a note saying "Comment: I wrote most of this and ..." near the top - David Gerard 09:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think if somebody has a personal non-wiki interest in the topic, such as owning a business the article is about, or actually being the subject of a bio, then they should disclose that. However, if somebody is the author of an article, about something they're unattached to, its nice, but unnecessary to disclose that. It's readily available in edit history, which all AFD voters, and the closing admin, are supposed to look at anyhow. --Rob 12:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * "edit history, which all AFD voters, and the closing admin, are supposed to look at anyhow" - *cough* *splutter* And how often do you think that's the case? - David Gerard 15:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I dunno...I look at that sort of thing most of the time if I see a debate going on. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 21:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I think it's courteous to mention any vested interest, and it improves their argument, but if they fail to state their interest, any other contributor can note it. Deco 19:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD notification template
Since one didn't seem to exist, I have created a template to notify people that an article they've editted is being listed on AfD. See Template:AFDWarning if interested. If we're going to try to encourage nominators inform various editors of AfDs, we might as well make it less tedius. --W.marsh 15:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Absolutely. Good one - David Gerard 08:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Subsections in AfD entries?
Several AfD have had subsections added to them by the use of multiple "equal sign" symbols. Is there a policy on that? Personally I think it confuses things - after it's done, which section are additional contributors supposed to add their comments to? Schizombie 06:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They are not supposed to occur since they create exactly this kind of confusion. Feel free to refactor the discussion into the standard, bulletized format.  See WP:GAFD for more.  Rossami (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting notification rather than forcing it
I've changed the wording on Template:AfD footer to suggest but not require editor notification. As I stated above, I believe creating a "right to notification" implies article ownership. I don't think there's consensus to require notification before nominating. I mean, if I'm wrong, this is not something I want to go against consensus on, but I think we need to clear this up before adding mandatory rules to the process. --W.marsh 16:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Guideline is fine. (Difference: policy is hard rules for everyone; guidelines are for clueful good-faith editors.) Making a good-faith effort is all we can ask, in practice. Basically, if they're a logged-in editor, they deserve the courtesy.

 * I've also added "If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, please do consider improving the article so that it meets the Wikipedia inclusion criteria." to, as I did to (where it seems to be accepted). Despite rules on article ownership, having your creation nominated for deletion feels like someone's knifing your baby (even when it's well-deserved, which it usually is); there's no reason to fail to be polite about it - David Gerard 19:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The only thing I object to about this notice (on both vfd and prod) is that some topics just aren't suitable for inclusion, like vanity articles. Asking them to improve it and subsequently deleting it anyway might seem disingenuous. Deco 23:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Deletion counts as improvement in such cases, per the link ;-) - David Gerard 14:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder if ""If you contributed to the article" might not be better. Creator makes sense if the article was recently created and no one else has worked on it, which is not always true of AfD. Шизомби 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 33


text:
Jill O'Sullivan

Jill O'Sullivan is a multi-instrumentalist, singer and songwriter who grew up in Chicago and is based in Glasgow, Scotland. Currently performing as Jill Lorean, O'Sullivan has been a member of bands Sparrow and the Workshop, Bdy_Prts and Three Queens in Mourning, as well as contributing to records by Frightened Rabbit, James Yorkston, Roddy Woomble, Broken Chanter, The Grand Gestures, The Fruit Tree Foundation and the Gral Brothers.

Career
O'Sullivan moved to London in 2005 to pursue a master's degree in sociology, completing her studies in Glasgow in 2007, where she soon after formed Sparrow and the Workshop with Nick Packer and Gregor Donaldson. The trio were signed to a label, Distiller Records, and released two EP's and three albums over the course of 6 years. After releasing their third album, Murderopolis, in 2013, the band took a break and O'Sullivan formed an alt pop duo with Jenny Reeve and, with the help of drummer Johnny Scott, released the album Fly, Invisible Hero in 2017. O'Sullivan's latest project, Jill Lorean, is a collaboration between O'Sullivan and musician/producer Andy Monaghan and drummer Peter Kelly and has so far resulted in one 6-track EP, Not Your First (2020), and a full album, This Rock (2022).

O'Sullivan has also released a collaborative album with renowned musicians Alasdair Roberts, Alex Neilson and Bonnie "Prince" Billy under the moniker Three Queens in Mourning (2020). In addition, she collaborated with Sean Cumming (John Knox Sex Club) on storytelling project Do the Gods Speak Esperanto, released in 2017. Over the years O'Sullivan has also worked with Scott Hutchison, Emma Pollock and James Yorkston amongst others, and toured with the likes of The Pogues and The Brian Jonestown Massacre. O'Sullivan has been playlisted on BBC6 Music, BBC Radio 1 and FM4, and has partaken in sessions for Lauren Laverne, Marc Riley and Maida Vale. She has performed at various festivals, including Glastonbury, Bestival, Hop Farm Festival, End of the Road, Green Man, London Calling and T in the Park.

Albums / EPs

 * Bastard Mountain - Farewell, Bastard Mountain, 2014
 * Do the Gods Speak Esperanto - Lotus Eaters, 2017
 * Bdy_Prts - Fly, Invisible Hero, 2017
 * Three Queens in Mourning - Hello Sorrow, Hello Joy, 2020
 * Jill Lorean - Not Your First, 2020
 * Jill Lorean - This Rock, 2022

Appears on

 * Patrick Watson - "Mary", 2003 (Violin)
 * Low Skies - "All The Love I Could Find", 2006 (Violin)
 * Fruit Tree Foundation - "First Edition", 2010 (Co-Write, Guitar)
 * Broken Records - "Dia Dos Namorados", 2010 (Vocals)
 * John Knox Sex Club - "Kiss the Dirt", 2011 (Vocals)
 * Roddy Woomble - "The Impossible Song and Other Songs", 2011 (Vocals)
 * The Grand Gestures - "There's No Place Like Home", 2012 (Vocals)
 * The Grand Gestures - "Deer in a Crosshair", 2012 (Vocals)
 * James Yorkston - Just as Scared", 2012 (Co-wrote, Vocals)
 * From Scotland With Love - "Film", 2014 (Vocals)
 * Frightened Rabbit - "Rained On", 2017 (Vocals)
 * BrewBand - "Brewband", 2018 (Violin, Vocals, Guitar)
 * Broken Chanter - "Broken Chanter", 2019 (Vocals, Violin)
 * Gral Brothers - "Caravan East", 2020 (Violin)
 * Alex Rex - "Andromeda"", 2020 (Vocals, Violin)
 * Broken Chanter - Catastrophe Hits, 2021 (Vocals, Violin)

title: Jill O'Sullivan


text:
Talk:Trademarks Act, 2004

This article is part of the Wikimedia Ghana User Group Wikipedia Education Program been held at the Gimpa Law School. The article is created by a new user of Wikipedia, please help improve it. --Owula kpakpo (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Trademarks Act, 2004


text:
Masanobu Takayanagi

Masanobu "Masa" Takayanagi (高柳 雅暢) is a Japanese cinematographer whose works include Silver Linings Playbook (2012), Warrior (2011) and The Grey (2011).

Life and career
Takayanagi was raised in Tomioka, a city in Gunma Prefecture. He briefly attended Tohoku University in Japan before deciding to pursue a career in cinematography in the American film industry; he was inspired by Masters of Light: Conversations with Contemporary Cinematographers, which he saw in a bookstore. He migrated to the United States around 1996 in order to attend film school at California State University, Long Beach at the university's Film and Electronics Arts Department, although he could not speak English at the time. He later attended the AFI Conservatory in Los Angeles and graduated in 2002. His short film Shui Hen, a graduate project he produced at the AFI Conservatory, won the 2003 Palm Springs International Film Festival's award for Best Student Cinematography. In 2004, he was awarded the American Society of Cinematographers' John F. Seitz Student Heritage Award.

After working on the film crews of various low-budget projects, in 2005 Takayanagi was hired as a Tokyo-based second unit cinematographer for the film Babel under Rodrigo Prieto. He later photographed the second units of State of Play, Eat Pray Love, The Eagle, and Monte Carlo. His first turn as a main unit cinematographer was on Meet Monica Velour, followed by The Grey, both released in 2011. In 2012, he was named one of Variety magazine's "10 Cinematographers to Watch". He photographed David O. Russell's 2012 film Silver Linings Playbook, followed by Out of the Furnace in 2013 and Rupert Goold's 2015 film True Story.

In 2015, Takayanagi became a member of the American Society of Cinematographers.

title: Masanobu Takayanagi


text:
User:Jake S Welford

This is the editor user page for Jake S Welford, also known as Jacob Sebastian Welford, or Jake Welford.

I am on Wikipedia to better profiles of people I know or know of well including

- Felicity Jones (Actress and old friend whom I went to Junior school and college with)

- Walter T Welford (My Grandfather, a world renowned physicist and inventor)

As well as, eventually, creating my own profile on Wikipedia.

title: User:Jake S Welford


text:
Pak Nga (constituency)

Pak Nga is one of the 37 constituencies in the Kwun Tong District of Hong Kong which was created in 2007.

The constituency loosely covers part of Hong Pak Court and Hong Shui Court in Lam Tin with the estimated population of 13,020.

title: Pak Nga (constituency)


text:
Σικανός

Etymology
A tribe of uncertain, possibly  affiliation, the Sicani's language is the earliest recorded stratum in Sicily. More at Sicani. Also compare.

Noun

 * 1) a    one of the

title: Σικανός


text:
Talk:NFL Cheerleading

The section on Male NFL Cheerleaders contains significant inaccuracies (Suggestions?)
I was a member of the new England Patriots cheerleading squad with five other males in 1978 and remained on the squad for three subsequent years. We did dance routines as well as partner stunts, group stunts, tumbling, and mini-trampoline. Based on what is stated in the Wikipedia entry, that means that we significantly predated the Baltimore Ravens Cheerleaders who are offered as the first for "stuntmen" in 1998. Since, as I mentioned, we also did the dance routines, that means we also predated what is indicated for both “ trends in dance” and “first male dancers” that is attributed to the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders in the following paragraph. DavisGregoryK (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:NFL Cheerleading


text:
Talk:Devin Barclay

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 15:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Devin Barclay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091118002701/http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/10363240/OT-win-over-Iowa-gives-Ohio-St.-Rose-Bowl-berth to http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/10363240/OT-win-over-Iowa-gives-Ohio-St.-Rose-Bowl-berth

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Devin Barclay


text:
Talk:Diana Vishneva

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diana Vishneva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928132341/http://www.vishneva.ru/eng/index.htm to http://www.vishneva.ru/eng/index.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Beauty-in-motion-Diana-Vishneva.jpg

title: Talk:Diana Vishneva


text:
Ununiform

Ununiform is the thirteenth studio album by English trip hop artist Tricky. It was released by False Idols on 22 September 2017. Three singles were taken from this album, 'The Only Way', 'When We Die' and 'Running Wild', all of them released before the album. And alternative version of 'The Only Way' was uploaded on Tricky personal Soundcloud account a few weeks after the original, and later released as a single in 2018, this version was also included in the physical releases of the album, but unlisted in the back cover. The album features a variety of guest vocalists, including Russian rappers, American vocalists, his usual collaborator Francesca Belmonte, and Tricky's frequent-collaborator and former girlfriend Martina Topley-Bird.

Recording
Tricky conceived the album while in Moscow, Russia; it consequently features vocal contributions from Russian rapper Smoky Mo. The album was recorded in Berlin, Germany. The album features a mixture of trip hop-inspired tracks as well as guitar-based tracks, including a cover version of "Doll Parts" by Hole, featuring vocals from Los Angeles-based artist Avalon Lurks. American hip hop artist Jay-Z co-engineered the album.

Critical reception
Ununiform received generally positive reviews from critics. At Metacritic, which assigns a normalised rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream publications, the album received an average score of 71, based on 12 reviews. Kitty Empire of The Observer gave the album 4 out of 5 stars, stating that "Tricky creates a claustrophobic world full of stark bass lines, pop digressions and slinky Bristol moments; his duet with Francesca Belmonte, New Stole, is particularly moreish." Ben Cardew of Pitchfork gave the album 5.1 out of 10 stars, summarising: "ununiform may come nowhere near to the jaw-dropping impact of those early Tricky albums. But buried deep in his 13th studio release, Tricky may just have sown the seeds of a new musical contentment." The album was compared to Serge Gainsbourg's Histoire de Melody Nelson (1971) and The xx's Coexist (2012).

Track listing
Note
 * 1 "Doll" is a cover of "Doll Parts" by Hole.
 * 2 "Running Wild" was also co-written by Mina Rose.
 * 3 "New Stole" is a reworked version of Francesca Belmonte song Stole from her debut album Anima.

Personnel
Musicians
 * Tricky – vocals, production
 * Scriptonite – vocals (tracks 2, 5, 6, 11)
 * Avalon Lurks – vocals, guitar (track 10)
 * Francesca Belmonte – vocals (track 3)
 * Asia Argento – vocals (track 4)
 * Mina Rose – vocals, guitar (tracks 7, 12)
 * Smoky Mo – vocals (track 11)
 * Martina Topley-Bird – vocals (track 13)
 * Terra Lopez – vocals (track 9)

Technical
 * Wim Janssens – guitar, synthesizer
 * Leon Schurz – bass
 * Muyi Liu – keyboards, piano
 * Tom Schneider – synthesizer
 * Jay-Z – engineering
 * BeatsBySmo – engineering, production
 * Levan Avazashvilli – engineering, production
 * Vasiliy Mikhaylovich Vakulenko – production

title: Ununiform


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of devices with an IR blaster

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

List of devices with an IR blaster

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a list of products with a particular feature. The list is large, so that feature is clearly not particularly notable or an novel differentiator among products. I don't think there's encyclopedic value in such a list, so this seems to only serve for promotion of the individual products. Many non-links, so the products themselves often aren't notable. Very few references. This very broad list will never be current and will be quite difficult to support. Fails WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:RAWDATA. Mikeblas (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Delete per nominator. Just not encyclopedic in any way. Ajf773 (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not appear to meet Notability --DannyS712 (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - now days there are less and less devices that support remote IR blaster, though almost every household still has TVs and other items that controlled by ir. So this list is very rare and at the same time very useful, if you need to identify which device has support for ir blaster. Please don't detete it) 23 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk)
 * Delete per nominator.4meter4 (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)