Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STS Love

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STS Love

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

Rather incoherent article about a (not yet open?) Russian TV channel. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from failing notability, we have a lack of language competence here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Having seen the hustle at ANI). The proper name is actually "CTC Love", and it is a part of the CTC Media group. Its startup was noted in the US, at

Halia Pavliva (Jan 30, 2014). "Love Channel Set to Spur CTC in Race for Female Viewers". Bloomberg.com.

but it's already covered in our CTC Media article. Since the article is about worthless, I suppose that a technical merge (i.e. redirect) into CTC Media is called for. Or WP:TNT or whatever. No such user (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 July 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 03:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as not notable. While it's apparently really a channel, which would normally counsel redirecting, this is an unlikely redirect. The correct one would be CTC Love, not STS Love (as for some reason that eludes me, the Cyrillic Es in the company's name is romanized as C). While we could still use it as a redirect from an alternate romanization scheme... the fact that this was created by a now-blocked hoaxer and sockpuppeteer makes me conclude that there's nothing of value here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:57, 14 August 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.