Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini Home Entertainment

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 keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 02:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini Home Entertainment[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

We have a patreon, three student sources, a self-published WordPress zine and two Screen Rant listicles for sources. I'm unsure about the reliability of Hyperreal Film Club. I'm an analog horror fan, but even bigger ones like the Mandela Catalogue don't have sufficient sourcing to warrant their own articles. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 01:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, some sources, like the Post work, not enough to possibly make this a full or regular keep to me. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems pretty straightforward to me, it's nontrivially mentioned in more than one independent source. — Xaonon (Talk) 05:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems like a series popular enough to warrant an article and has its own merch line. However, it's not popular enough that I can see why someone would nominate it, but I think it just barely escapes the category of non-notability. I actually think the Mandela catalogue deserves it's own article too. Thank you & have a good day. Tvshowoflife (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments listed above - the page could use some more sources, but what we have so far is already pretty solid. --BrayLockBoy (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2023 (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.