Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CuriosityStream

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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrawal, and no non-keep votes. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CuriosityStream

[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)

pure advertisement, complete with program listing, device compatibility, and prices. And name dropping and extensive links. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cut out a lot of advertorial text. XOR'easter (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, wait till you see Nebula (streaming video service), a child company of CuriosityStream. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nebula (streaming video service) DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created Nebula (streaming video service) and added links on this article to it, but it is not a child company but a promotional partner. Their bundle deal together is probably where a lot of people hear about CuriosityStream but the issue is that there are very few notable non-promotional sources for this. IMHO the page is probably a WP:STUB but does meet notability requirements and does not feel like an advert. But the issue is valuable content such as cable or satellite providers they have partnered with, more info on actual documentaries they produced, or their board of directors have gotten removed as it seems more like an advertising, but that is the very same content that adds to notability and substance of article. So my questions is: what content can/should be added to it that would be considered substantive and notable but not seem like an advertisement? Oh and case anyone thinks I am paid - I am not, nor do I think anyone who made recent edits is. IMHO ProcrastinatingReader added {{Undisclosed paid}} with no evidence for this --Lefton4ya (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub: Agreed that the page is written like an advertismeent and clearly needs to be trimmed of all the promotional content and condensed, but with a history of 5 years I don’t think we should be so quick to delete altogether. Work on trimming the blatant promo, add back the npov history section as is typical for these types of articles, keep as stub page and flag to allow for other editors to improve. Rainchecker (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might need further reduction from the current point, but the worst was easy enough to trim. Between the sources already present and the ongoing news coverage that the news search indicates, I think the wiki-notability case is made. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in Variety ([1] , [2]), Forbes ([3]), LA Times ([4]), Wall Street Journal ([5]), and Bloomberg ([6]). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With reliable sources indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quite a popular streaming service actually. Sources are more than enough presently to pass GNG as per Ahecht. - hako9 (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing afd since the promotionalism has been removed. My nomination was not for lack of notability, but pervasive promotionalism , which if not removed is an equally good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 1 August 2020 (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.