Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Screen Rant

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. No support for deletion. Owen× ☎ 22:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Rant

[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)

Appears below WP:NWEB, the most prominent source is on Ryan George YouTube videos. Related to the Valnet merges/additions, I suggest redirected to the section there. IgelRM (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Websites. IgelRM (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning merge and redirect to Valnet. BD2412 T 19:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Brevity and the Short Form in Serial Television (Edinburgh University Press) has coverage about the website and their approach. Briefly mentioned in The Comics World: Comic Books, Graphic Novels, and Their Publics (2021).University Press of Mississippi. The Hollywood Reporter article is also OK for notability imv. I didn't search that hard. Its content is also (as their About Us claims but also a ton of GBooks allow to verify) widely cited in other media. I don't think a Redirect is necessary. -Mushy Yank. 19:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think its this book (GBooks link), says the "landmark feature" is Screen Rant's inclusion of fan theories. Regarding Hollywood Reporter: the Latino Review article is not significant coverage; Relativity Media article relies on PR and has one reporting paragraph. IgelRM (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has more than enough reliable sources and is notable. Eric Carpenter (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please be specific, e.g. examples? IgelRM (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – enough independent sources and coverage. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable major media source in movies and geekdom. —Lowellian (reply) 10:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article seems to be encyclopedic - it has a fairly detailed (but brief) history section with good sourcing. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:01, 29 March 2025 (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.