Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nebula (streaming video service)


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Nebula (streaming video service)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional : in the plainest sense--a list of programs, and a list of those who have appeared on the channel--almost none of them individually notable  DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  09:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  09:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  09:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete pure promo. Made obvious after reading The streaming service currently costs $3 per month, or $30 per year. However, a current bundle deal with CuriosityStream is $2.99 per month or $19.99 a year for both services when customers sign up with CuriosityStream using a promotional code supplied by one of the Nebula creators. This doesn't appear to meet notability policies anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know that it is accurate to say that almost none of those who have appeared on the channel are individually notable. Several of them have Wikipedia articles . TompaDompa (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete (weak). Very promotional in nature. Nebula could be notable in future, but I don't feel like it's terribly notable now. The article definitely needs fixing in either case. Skylar MacDonald (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional as is, but WP:DINC. However, it is WP:TOOSOON as not sufficient independant coverage. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment A quick highlight-and-delete improved the tone considerably. A news search revealed some sources that might be reliable, but some of that coverage was actually talking about how (comparatively) obscure it was . This seems more of a "too soon" than a "kill it with fire". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks XOR&#39;easter for adding links to creators with Wiki pages. Also I think those articles are worth adding to article as they are verified 3rd parties.  Interesting to note that Quibi now only has 72,000 paid subscribers while Nebula has over 100,000 making it bigger than Quibi but a lot less notable because "whatever budget Nebula has, it isn’t being spent on publicists." so there is a lot less 3rd party articles on it. --Lefton4ya (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I created the article and have edited many times. I probably did write it too much  promotional, but because I am a novice and was/copy pasting other articles I found as a template - not because I work for or am paid by company. I did find it hard to find reliable 3rd party references, but still feel the article is notable and worthy of a WP article.  Maybe the Advert tag can stay on but not be deleted - you guys are way too brutal and lazy as WP:DINC - article needs cleaned up not deleted as there is tons of notable authors with exclusive content on this site.  But since I made article, others can disagree but you must provide strong evidence on why content on the site is notable but not the streaming service that provides that content in order for the article to not be notable enough to delete.--Lefton4ya (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Barely found anything about the sreaming service. Definitely WP:PROMOTIONAL. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: None of the programs listed have an article. Out of the 4 references, only 1 is to a 3rd party source. This does not look notable at all. --Gonnym (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Its deeply misleading to say none of the creators are individually notable, so lets just forget that. But it does seem to be a case of too early for coverage - also it faces the same problem most YouTubers do. They regularly provide content to more people than major terrestrial television networks and the media never covers them. JT dale Talk ~ 11:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Between the two Tubefilter sources available (the one in the article and the one cited above) and the Vox bit, I think there's just barely enough coverage to get over the bar. I won't weep buckets if it goes, but I don't think the current content is so objectionable that it would disgrace the encyclopedia if it remained. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, to early for Wikipedia eligibility. Maybe in a few months/years. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Template:Advert needs to be kept and addressed but there is really no question that a streaming platform of this size meets the criteria for credibility.Tar-Elessar (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.