This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:Valnet was copied or moved into Valnet with this edit on August 29, 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
The contents of the XDA Developers page were merged into Valnet. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The contents of the MovieWeb page were merged into Valnet. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The contents of the Collider (website) page were merged into Valnet. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Support merge of all 4. Not much notability for either of them on their own and, when coupled together, there would be more benefit to a singular parent article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – I think if one looked hard enough, they might be able to add more sources to arguably meet GNG, but it may still be beneficial to have a unified parent article per WP:NOPAGE. If certain publications amass as much notability as Comic Book Resources, they can always be re-split. I should note that MovieWeb has previously been AfD'd, so this discussion will bypass/supersede that one. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (except Screen Rant) since I believe other sources exist to qualify them for their own page. I will do a quick search on the company, if I cannot find them, then I will strike this tangent. BarntToust (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IgelRM: I am frankly not concerned about the notability of Valnet, as it has received sufficient coverage for each of its acquisitions, some of which inevitably goes into greater depth about Valnet as the acquiring company. As to the others, the point of the merge proposal is that they are not demonstrably independently notable, no matter how many years before their acquisition they came into existence. WP:RECENTISM does not enter into the equation, because the subsidiaries were never notable in the first place. At the same time, they are obviously noteworthy for inclusion in the Valnet article, because their acquisition by Valnet was reported in reliable sources. BD2412T12:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of acquisitions is different from company notability, it would suggest a "List of acquisitions by Valnet". As pointed out above, MovieWeb still barely survived the previous AFD. If they are deemed not notable, deletion or redirection is the procedural outcome. What if Valnet decides to sell of these sites, do we need to rename the article to whatever is next then? IgelRM (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, ComicBook.com got sold by Paramount Global to Savage Ventures not too long ago. By the time that several acquisitions of a certain company are so enacted, they usually provide independent notability. I believe ComicBook was only an entry on List of assets owned by Paramount Global, until of course, at the time of the acquisition by the other company. I'm sure these sites can have their own if they prove so notable. I do think, at the least, cursory information does belong summarizing these histories (their important parts, anyhow) for contextual purposes. BarntToust (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of the problem here is that Valnet, having made several acquisitions, has been reported on several times as an acquirer. The companies acquired may only have been reported on at that level the one time. Also, a List of acquisitions by Valnet would end up being a WP:CONTENTFORK of the Valnet article, if the article was correctly constructed. BD2412T02:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (excluding Comic Book Resources and Screen Rant) both of these articles, as pointed out by InfiniteNexus and BarntToust, have significant article lengths and histories. I think it would be an injustice to merge these two, especially Comic Book Resources, as much of the good information in that article would likely end up getting deleted if it were to be condensed and summarized here to avoid undue weight. Cheers! Johnson52423:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, @Johnson524 A mistake! Comic Book Resources is not affiliated with Valnet, and is not related to this proposal. I was simply using an applied example of "when a company is bought enough times, information tends to come out about them during the course of the buyouts due to media attention". But yeah, Screen Rant, I agree, is notable enough on its own, which is a Valnet company. BarntToust(Talk)23:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (excluding Screen Rant) - Most of these articles are of questionable notability, yes. However, Screen Rant is an established critic and deserves its own article. Drdr150 (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of the above discussion, the consensus being clear, I am going to go ahead and merge in all but Screen Rant (and Comic Book Resources, which was not proposed to be merged in the first place). BD2412T20:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's already gone forward, but I also support this idea. If any of the sites have any pre-valnet history, that can still be addressed within this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=icon}
The redirect Movie Trivia Schmoedown has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 19 § Movie Trivia Schmoedown until a consensus is reached. Jalen Barks (Woof) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)