Talk:Valnet

I propose that Collider, MovieWeb, Screen Rant, and XDA Developers be merged here, as all are merely subsidiaries of Valnet, which are noteworthy to be discussed in this article, but of questionable individual notability. BD2412 T 03:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• Support (except {{em|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)
• Oppose per WP:Recentism. Mentioned websites were founded in 1995, 2002, 2003 and 2005, so we need to look at the notability independently. Moreover, I question whether Valnet passes WP:NCORP. IgelRM (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• : {{re|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. BD2412 T 12:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• ::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)
• :::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 {{em|important}} parts, anyhow) for contextual purposes. BarntToust (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• :::: 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. BD2412 T 02:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Nothing to really support the individual sites as being notable unto themselves. Best solution is to merge. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support per above 2600:2B00:9639:F100:75E3:304:88E8:6CD2 (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• 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! Johnson524 23:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• :This proposal does not propose merging Comic Book Resources. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• :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)
• ::@BarntToust, @InfiniteNexus Ohhh gotcha. Yeah that’s completely my fault, I misinterpreted that 😅 OK so I’m just opposed to Screen Rant then, cheers! Johnson524 23:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• ::No, Comic Book Resources is owned by Valnet, but this proposal does not include Comic Book Resources. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• :::Yes I understand 👍 Johnson524 23:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• :::Oh no, I got Comic Book Resources mixed up with ComicBook.com. Silly me, that was me getting confuzzled. CBR isn't included in this, tho. BarntToust^(Talk) 23:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

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). BD2412 T 20:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

:Absolutely good work, @BD2412! BarntToust^(Talk) 20:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

: 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)

::GNG should decide if articles stay or not, nothing else.★Trekker (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movie_Trivia_Schmoedown&redirect=no 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 {{slink|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)

This is the first sentence in the "History" section:

"Foosball player students Matt Keezer, Stephane Manos, Sam and Hassan Youssef started a business..."

I don't understand what "foosball player students" is supposed to mean. Did they meet at college through playing foosball? This is really confusing. YarrowFlower (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

: According to The Wrap article (which cites a New York Magazine article for this proposition): "The origins of Valnet can be traced back to Montreal's competitive foosball circuit", where the three met, and one of them helped with the online streaming of live Foosball-training sessions. BD2412 T 23:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::I see that you fixed this sentence, @BD2412. Thank you! YarrowFlower (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)