Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVD Talk (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=DVD Talk}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=DVD Talk}})

It doesn't have significant coverege on reliable and independent sources. Most of the content of the article is non-encyclopedic and probably added to create an illusion to make it look notable. Being "worth a visit" or "recommended" are not notable information at all. It would be enough to mention that on Geoffrey Kleinman and Internet Brands articles. Nanahuatl (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep as has been repeatedly used in reliable sources such as The Los Angeles Times and other newspaper reliable sources such as The Oregonian and Star Tribune as shown in the article. It is a reliable source on Wikipedia and a major critic on Rotten Tomatoes so deletion would be unnecessary and unjustified in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. I wrote the article almost 10 years ago (or most of it, probably). It's short enough that merging this content somewhere wouldn't be much of a loss, but the website apparently had an appreciable impact on the industry once upon a time. For example, multiple sources cite DVD Talk as the reason why Amazon.com changed one of its more controversial policies. There was some question as to whether DVD Talk was a reliable source, such as if it could be used to reliably describe release dates and Easter eggs in Featured Articles. Reliable sources themselves answered the question, so I collected their views into an article itself. I find the insinuation in the nomination that I'm a spammer to be so absurd that it's not even worth getting upset over. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep A quick look at the article shows that it's subject has been covered in CNET, Home Media Magazine, Star Tribune, etc. While I could just pull a WP:PERX per Atlantic306 and NinjaRobotPirate, the fact that this has been covered in multiple sources, and more importantly, which sources have covered this, should've been more than enough for this to not have been brought to AFD.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - Perusing old AFD's to see if there is anywhere I can assist in building consensus and came across this one. There are sources constituting sig-cov and so the article should not be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.