Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valnet Inc.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The standard is NCORP and the keep side has not overcome the source analysis. Assertive policy lite votes were given limited weight. Spartaz Humbug! 14:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valnet Inc.

[edit]

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

Valnet Inc. (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)

'Investment company' and/or 'content farm', article has barely any content - not enough to differentiate between these two characterisations - and certainly nothing to assert notability - sourcing is similarly patchy, with the usual routine funding announcements, press releases, acquisitions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; WP:CORPDEPTH. I would refer interested parties to WP:SERIESA. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've worked on the article. In my opinion, relevant are WP:NCORP § Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations and WP:NOT. Sufficient reliable sources discuss the significant and demonstrable effect that this media conglomerate has had on culture and entertainment. I'm referring particularly to the major structural changes it makes to its acquired websites, with a recent example being CBR.[1][2][3] The article barely having any content makes it a stub, not a candidate for deletion. It is an investment company that runs content farms; if this is unclear, it does not make it a candidate for deletion, but for copy editing. But, yes, there's definitely room for improvement.

References

  1. ^ https://www.thepopverse.com/cbr-layoffs-june-2023-comic-book-resources-layoffs-inside
  2. ^ https://bleedingcool.com/comics/firings-quittings-and-valnet-fallout-at-comic-book-resources/
  3. ^ https://www.comicsbeat.com/inside-cbr-layoffs/

--2001:1C06:19CA:D600:BCB1:BFE1:C37F:5C6A (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. A few weeks ago this might have been a delete as Valnet has stayed under the radar with routine coverage. But the timing here put us in an interesting place. We have in-depth, direct significant coverage from the who's who of reliable genre publications, independent of the company (if we consider whistleblowers as independent), the only issue is whether they qualify as secondary sources. I think its fair to say most of the articles are a hybrid with a good amount of synthesis of information and background. —siroχo 08:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely notable per 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:BCB1:BFE1:C37F:5C6A's comments and refs. These refs definitely meet our standards for reliability - I checked.
--User:A. B. 20:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Private Equity--21:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All three sources introduced by SPA 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:BCB1:BFE1:C37F:5C6A (whose sole contribution to WP is to this AfD) refer to layoffs at CBD following its acquisition by Valnet. Again, the stuff of WP:SERIESA - routine company events reported in specialist vertical/trade media. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Alexander, there's nothing wrong with specialist vertical/trade media. Our notability rules don't rule them out. They just need to be reliable.
    2. As for "routine events", this articles refs above actually refer to drastic problems developing - hardly routine. Not only that, but CBD's problems are directly attributed to new Valnet management and policies.
    3. WP:SERIESA ("Wikipedia is not Crunchbase") is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It has a boxed caveat at the top:
      "This is an essay on notability."
      "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."
      • The essay was written by just 2 people -- there was no RfC or broader community input that I'm aware of.
      • I'll note that some of the things the essay cites as "routine" are anything but -- indicating a flawed understanding of business. Bankruptcy, for instance; corporate death is a major "life event". Mergers and acquisitions for another; a company gets bought or sold and that's another major life event.
    4. IP editors are valid contributors under our rules. Some of my best edits were made as an IP.
    A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander, in response to your statement, "whose sole contribution to WP is to this AfD". My provider appears to have given me the whole 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:* IPv6 subnet. As I wrote, "I've worked on the article." I've been editing Wikipedia for many years, from various IP addresses. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:38A1:AC8A:19C1:5D08 (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged, with thanks. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the edit history, this article was created by a 2001:1c06:19ca:d600 IP [1]. Beccaynr (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:38A1:AC8A:19C1:5D08 has a comment on that? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TNT. Reads like a brochure advertising article. Currently fails WP:NCORP, after looking at the first two blocks of references. Can't see how it is notable though as they're is currently no definition of what it actually is. Its been put up as a brochure advertising article with little thought, (meaning contemptous of wikipedia) by paid editors. scope_creepTalk 18:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Despicable accusations aimed at me, the primary editor of the article. To state that payment made me attempt to, contemptuously and thoughtlessly - no less, advertise the company. The listing of brands, and the sentence about their pay-per-view system, must have really ticked you off, huh? The sentence about the company being a "content farm business" isn't exactly a compliment, and the subsequent sentence about it motivating its freelancers to get pageviews further emphasizes the company's clickbait priority. Something I reiterated in my contribution to this AfD above; and you actually think I'm attempting to promote the company? --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:8D07:6443:4FA5:AB8B (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the references, in the first two blocks:
  • Ref 1 [2] Non-rs.
  • Ref 2 [3] "We cannot be more thrilled that Little Angel has found the right home with Moonbug,” commented Hassan Youssef, CEO of Valnet, the Quebec, Canada-based company that operates Little Angel." Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND. Comes from a press-release
  • Ref 3 [4] Paid for company profile.Not independent Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 4 [5] Company profile and listing of press-releases.Not independent Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 5 [6] Company profile. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 6 [7] Looks like a secondary source until you realise it fails WP:ORGIND as company interview used to gather info. Not independent.
  • Ref 7 [8] Passing mention. Not in-depth. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 8 [9] Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. Info taken from press-release and company employees. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 9 [10] Passing mention.
  • Ref 10 [11] Company sale. Routine coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Info from a press-release. Not independent.
  • Ref 11 [12] Content taken from a company press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 12 [13] More routine coverage of sale. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. Not independent.

There is not a single secondary source in the whole two blocks and I have a severe doubts there is anything of note in the third. As a private company there is no coverage that hasn't been generated by the company itself. It completely non-notable as it fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 19:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing here is pointless. Context is completely missing, both for references individually (i.e. what they are used for), and for the references in general. For example, you start off with "Non-rs", about an official department of the Government of Canada giving us the date of incorporation. It is a stub article. Many of these references are merely used to back up claims about brand ownership. I urge you to look at the bigger picture. Perhaps you are willing to first read the other contributions on this AfD page, and give your views on the alternate criteria in relation to the impact that the company's management and policies have had on several notable websites. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:8D07:6443:4FA5:AB8B (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference is company incorporation documents. They are WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS and are effectively non-rs and not independent, meaning they they fails WP:SIRS, by long established consensus. If you were an actual Wikipedian you would know that, but since you seem to have a clear COI, I will trust my own judgement and ignore you. The three references are above, which are included in the list I created above, all fails WP:SIRS. They are so woefully bad that I can barely comment on them. scope_creepTalk 20:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that your trying to do your job but your comments are fundamentally flawed because you don't understand notability policy. Everybody must work and get paid to keep there head dry. scope_creepTalk 21:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, you wrote
  • "If you were an actual Wikipedian you would know that, but since you seem to have a clear COI, I will trust my own judgement and ignore you."
I'm requesting you focus on the AfD discussion and skip this sort of stuff. Making comments like this is not the Wikipedia way.
-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.: The editor came in three ago as an IP editor and clearly dont understand notability policy. They are here to defend this company article, so they probably have some kind of coi. What part of the comment is not accurate exactly? scope_creepTalk 07:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.: The IP address above, is a different address to the one below. scope_creepTalk 07:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw the message above about the whole IP address. scope_creepTalk 07:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've taken a bit of an edit pass on the article, updated some references, attempted to improve NPOV by focusing the article more on the aspects that provide notability, and started to provide a bit more context in the "brands" section. Still needs work, but I've updated my !vote above from "weak keep" to "keep" based on further examination of the SIRS sources related to the recent CBR news. —siroχo 21:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per Siroxo. Okoslavia (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also edited the article, including to remove press releases, WP:CRUNCHBASE, repetitive excess company listings, etc. The quality and depth of sources remaining do not appear to support notability for a commercial organization:
I excluded sources from this list that announce or mention acquisitions by Valnet and are trivial coverage. From my view, one of the notability problems for this article includes the WP:UNDUE focus on recent events at Comic Book Resources that have been reported on in-depth by one source. This is not significant coverage of the company itself in multiple sources. Based on the available sources, it does not seem possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about this corporation, unless a large amount of promotional, low-quality content and sources are added. Delete therefore seems most appropriate at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr and anyone else who is worried about the press release links, I've added a talk page message about the non-reliable sources Talk:Valnet Inc.#Still need more reliable sources, but until then, this is better than nothing. Suffice it to say, they are not meant for notability, more details in the talk page. —siroχo 12:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you redirect to disamg article when the subject of the article is non-notable. scope_creepTalk 15:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could feasibly add a disambig line like

• Valnet, Inc, owner of Comic Book Resources and other media outlets.

and do the IP user's suggestion of moving the CBR-related information into the destination article. Disambiguation pages frequently point to articles about notable subjects that are not under the title of the disambiguation page itself. If the disambiguation entry grows too large, we'd know it's time to revive this article. I'm happy with this redirect + merge into Comic Book Resources plan. —siroχo 01:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not process. Its not how its down. Redirects are mechanism's used here. scope_creepTalk 10:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seeing as how there isn't an obvious redirect target as per below. The NCORP/GNG debate about the word "or" is tired and generally used by editors to duck meeting NCORP (which is really a guidelines on *how* to interpret GNG). It is certainly WP:OR to suggest that this "media conglomerate" has had such effects on society - show me the references. Redirect to Comic Book Resources. None of the sources mentioned here provide sufficient in-depth "Independent Content" about the company and most of the resources are in fact talking about CBR (thanks to a decision made by the topic company) and not the topic company itself. I acknowledge we have broad descriptions of the topic company included in some references but this still falls short of establishing the notability of this company. HighKing++ 10:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This, similar to the suggestion above, is WP:RECENTISM. Their most well-known brand is likely Screen Rant; not CBR. And the article started off as a redirect to MovieWeb, another well-known brand - as is their film website Collider. This is the reason I included a Brands section in the article. It feels like we are now back to square one. In my experience, one or two editors briefly recognized that WP:NCORP contains content relevant to what are called "primary criteria", and content relevant to "alternate criteria", with WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, etc. only being relevant to the former. (Note the italic "or" at WP:NCORP § Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations.) I pointed out the effect that this media conglomerate has had on culture and entertainment, particularly the structural changes it makes to its acquired websites. That is how it got noticed by people outside of the organization, as demonstrated by independent sources. As an example, I included three references about CBR. Other editors then ran with these sources to demonstrate the company meets the primary criteria - which it does not. Next, editors stripped all references from the article that were merely used to back up claims about brand ownership. (The majority of those sources were sufficiently reliable and non-primary, but had no in-depth coverage, which made meeting the primary criteria a hurdle.) This then allowed editors to completely remove the brands overview, including all websites that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Even though the brands are quite relevant when it comes to establishing the subject meeting the alternate criteria. On this page, to no avail - as far as I can tell, I've requested "Perhaps you are willing to [...] give your views on the alternate criteria in relation to the impact that the company's management and policies have had on several notable websites." --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:F2E5:A219:C144:2B70 (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the primary WP:NCORP criteria apply because this is a commericial organization, but I mentioned on the article Talk page [14], the WP:NCORP guideline [...] offers guidance on reviewing articles based not only on GNG, but also the second prong of WP:N, i.e. WP:NOT. For example, WP:ORGCRIT includes, The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion, with a wikilink to WP:PROMO. But whether we refer to this assessment as GNG plus NOT or just NCORP with its particularly applicable guidance, the analysis is similar. The alternate criteria WP:COMMERCIAL appears to echo this with its reference to WP:NOTADVERTISING.
From my view, it also appears to potentially be original research to assert that this commerical organization has had an effect "on culture and entertainment, particularly the structural changes it makes to its acquired websites." At minimum, the use of an example with sources mostly already included in the Comic Book Resources article does not appear sufficient to support notability for Valnet under any guideline.
Also, I did not remove the brands overview, because this appears to verifiable content; I removed press release sources, as further discussed on the article Talk page; there appear to be promo and NPOV concerns related to the removal of the listing by another editor, and this may undermine the notability of Valnet according to WP:PRODUCTS; all of this turns on whether reliable secondary sources exist, which should also be independent. The sources that supported the removed content [15] are:
  • 2015 Variety announcement - "This year, three widely read blogs — Collider, Screen Rant and Latino Review — sold to deep-pocketed buyers Complex Media, Valnet, and former Chrysler and Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli, respectively."
  • 2016 Comicsbeat announcement - "site founder Jonah Weiland announced that he had sold the site to Valnet, a Canadian-based company that specializes in developing media-focused websites such as Screen Rant, which it also owns."
  • 2020 The Wrap announcement - "Popular entertainment news site Collider was acquired by online media publisher Valnet, the company announced on Tuesday. Valnet is also the owner of Game Rant and Screen Rant."
  • TheGamer Ownership, Funding, and Advertising Policy - "TheGamer has been owned and operated by online publisher Valnet Inc in Montreal, Canada since February 2015. Valnet (a subsidiary of the Valsef) investment group) oversees operation of TheGamer across all platforms across on which the brand appears"
  • There is also a CNET download link that is not working for me, used as a cite for the 2014 BabyGaga acquisition and ownership of TheRichest.
Wikipedia is not a directory, and it does not appear that independent, reliable, secondary sources are currently available to broadly show "the impact that the company's management and policies have had on several notable websites." I would also add that from my view, concerns within the policies and guidelines about promo and advertising are not necessarily related to the motives of any particular editor; I think we should examine the content and sources and objectively assess whether the content is encyclopedic. Beccaynr (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the brands section. It's not meant to be permanently gone. However, without verifiable acquisition dates, it read a bit too PROMO to me. Contextualizing the brands as acquired over time turns it from a promotional list to the first step towards a company history. I don't want to take an "all or nothing" stance, but if we only have a small fraction of the brands verified with acquisition dates I'm not sure we're doing article readers any favors and might even mislead them. I guess my rough line would be at least 50% should be easily verifiable for a CORP article about a holding company, so if the secondary sources you have can verify acquisition dates to roughly that level, I would support restoring it. —siroχo 08:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm aware that the company does not fall in one of the categories listed under WP:COMMERCIAL, but it still meets WP:COMMERCIAL itself. Unless the suspicion exists that the article was created for WP:PROMOTION. At least one editor has stated, without hesitation, that it was. It was not. I suspect that some editors are so afraid of giving companies free advertising that their fear alone is sufficient to oppose including a Brands section. Even though, as a reader, it is informative to learn which brands a company owns, particularly given this company's pageviews/clickbait priorities. Which was pointed out in the article from the start. (The stub, with very few sentences, called it a "content farm business" and pointed out how it tries to get more pageviews.) I truly don't understand how anyone can think I've tried to promote the company, let alone got paid to do so. It must have been the Brands overview, right? --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:F2E5:A219:C144:2B70 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would, honestly, just leave it there. Enough for now, let others contribute (if any) before this closes (God help the closer)... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, I was using the Reply function, which for whatever reason, did not let me see these additional comments before I added my comment above. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page should not be merged or redirected just to Comic Book Resources because per their website they are the parent company of multiple brands which have their own articles on Wikipedia including XDA Developers and Screen Rant so redirecting to just 1 franchise of their portfolio would be incorrect and misleading in my opinion. Notability is not inherited per WP:INHERITORG but inheritability should be treated differently between parent to child versus child to parent and in my opinion the parent organization should inherit notability in many cases. Like in this case the article is clearly deficient and yet probably should exist with summary coverage of each subsidiary which can be partially taken from their respective articles. - Indefensible (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In addition to keep and delete arguments, two different redirect targets have been proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to CBR. The only substantive material I'm seeing here is better covered at that article; and even together with the other fragments, does not add up to SIGCOV. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:50, 29 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valnet_Inc.&oldid=1167731201"