Points of interest related to Kentucky on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Kentucky. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName)) to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding ((subst:delsort|Kentucky|~~~~)) to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Kentucky.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Kentucky/archive

WBNM-LD

WBNM-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG; another diginet coatrack. Could merge with sister station WBNA. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Might as well say that because couldn’t find any sources. --Danubeball (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehr Hassan

Mehr Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:Notability Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been in multiple films that seem to have wikipedia articles of their own. As per: WP:ARTIST, criteria 3, that should probably be enough.

also, seems like this is the 3rd nomination. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Music, Fashion, Pakistan, Punjab, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The newspapers used now in the article for sourcing are all there is for this person; I don't see notability beyond the local level. I can't find any mention of them otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The fact she has been seen on multiple movies which has a wikipedia page doesn't qualify her to have a wikipedia page. This is just like the case of Lucy Grantham (2nd nomination). The subject Mehr Hassan fails WP:GNG. Her first AFD which was keep was just a two vote of keep which was still saying because she appeared in a movie. No independent reliable source, No award won or being nominated as an actress or dancer. I really don't see anything notable. --Meligirl5 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films. The Louisville Courier article too makes a case for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does having just one reliable source qualifies a person of having a Wikipedia page?

Hassan started her dancing career as a stage performer in the United States.

How do we believe such statement with no reliable source.?--Meligirl5 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR, which is clearly the applicable guideline. rspεεr (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. WP:NACTOR appears to hold here for now, although perhaps the articles for the films she starred should be reviewed for their notability. The bottom line is that long as those films are notable, she is, if barely. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm familiar with a "Soft Delete" but can anyone define a "Soft Keep" for me? Do you mean "Weak Keep"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NACTOR at this point for the roles in notable films she starred in. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The subject's claim of appearing in numerous films lacks verifiable evidence, thus failing to meet WP:ARTISTS. The available coverage appears to be routine per WP:ROTM and lacks the depth required by WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Courier-Journal article wasn't routine, and by what sources we have, Hassan was in these films, noting that the sourcing of the related film articles was light (thus my 'Weak Keep'). I suspect however that her appearance in some of them was exaggerated to make it appear she was a lead when she wasn't. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vecteezy

Vecteezy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm surprised that User:Jamiebuba approved this page because this company has a long and torrid history of COI and uploading promotional pages to Wikipedia and this page seems no different to what has gone before. Sure, we've got Entrepreneur Magazine which might have been published independently of the subject but there are a lot of sources that don't count as RS like press releases, local newspapers and the dreaded TechCrunch the least independent source in the history of business journalism. I think it's safe to say that this one-man band, run of the mill, stock image supplier fails WP:NCORP and is hardly notable so fails WP:GNG. I am interested to see what crawls out of the woodwork in the ensuing discussion, though.Dafydd y Corach (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Photography, Companies, Websites, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The Biz journal article is repeated in a Lexington newspaper and by Yahoo [1] so feels like a PR item. The rest of the sources given don't impress me. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously needs a complete rewrite and shouldn't have been accepted in its current state, but these reviews [2] [3] seem like enough for a NCORP/NPRODUCT pass. – Teratix ₵ 14:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They are some reviews from some good news organizations on subject. Enough to satisfy WP:NCORP.Chekidalum (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to meet NCORP although this type of writing shouldn't get past AFC. X (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if the article is recase to be about the website but otherwise Delete. The topic of the article is a *company* therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Two sources mentioned above refer to reviews on the product/website of the company. Just to point out the obvious - if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. I'd also add that those references would not, in my opinion, meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the product either - both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links and appears Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. Well, in that case we can write the article on Vecteezy the website instead. In fact, my understanding is that's how the article is written already.

  both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links this interpretation of independence is too demanding and is not supported by ORGIND. The actual reviews demonstrate more than enough deep and original analysis to qualify as significant independent opinion.

  Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent Well, these are two different allegations – being a blog would make it unreliable, not non-independent. They appear to have a strong editorial policy but looking through the rest of the site it does look like they're a bit of a one-man operation. On the borderline for me.

  In any case there is also PetaPixel's review already cited in the article, which should settle it. – Teratix ₵ 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would encourage somebody to consider recasting the article so that it is primarily about the product (the website) and if that were the case I believe it would pass GNG/NCORP as a topic and I've changed my !vote to reflect that. Sometimes it might appear that an article is about the product (i.e. the website) and not about the company, but for me that isn't the case here. The article includes a company template and omits key information about the product while including information which is relevant to company activity such as signing deals and agreements - sure they impacted the product but compare the thrust of the article with the reviews you've pointed to concerning the website. Those reviews write from the point of view of the website. The article omits any mention of features such as reverse image searching, or the recent incorporation of AI, or valid critcisms which have been written about. As it stands, for me, the topic is the company and the company fails GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion