- 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. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Aviencloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage. Borderline A7. C F A 💬 15:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Germany. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Only thing of relevance I found in the sources is "thanks to the song's distributing label, Aviencloud, whose releases are copyright-free." from edm.com IgelRM (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - 33 cites, and they're basically all a combination of self-cites, things that might say the word Aviencloud somewhere in passing, and quite a few about people or businesses who have some kind of tangential relation to Aviencloud and don't even mention it. There's basically nothing here about Aviencloud, even if you try and stretch the word "significant" as if it were taffy. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- #comment I have reviewed the article and noticed a potential conflict of interest, as the title matches the name of the article's major contributor. Regarding its notability, the content is covered by 1 but I could not verify the reputation of this source. If it is considered reputable, it could support the page's relevance, in addition to other minor mentions. However, if it is not a credible source, the article would likely need to be deleted.Instant History (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- comment I neutralized the article to an extent. Kept informative things only and kept some sources that are already cited on Wikipedia. As per my understanding the channel is supportive and popular among the particular niche. Also, I believe it meets general notability and notability of a YouTube channel/people if I compare with some similar pages that we have here.NatalieTT (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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.