This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article about Valnet, a publication, organization, or individual that is or has been used as a source for Wikipedia articles. It is not the proper venue for discussing the reliability of the publication, organization, or individual as a source for other, unrelated articles.
The subject in question may or may not be considered reliable for a particular article or topic area or for the encyclopedia as a whole, depending on editor consensus.
Policy permits limited use of material published by subjects as sources for articles about themselves, provided that the claim is not exceptional, contentious, or reasonably disputed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:Valnet was copied or moved into Valnet with this edit on August 29, 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
The content of XDA Developers was merged into Valnet. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The content of MovieWeb was merged into Valnet. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The content of Collider (website) was merged into Valnet. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support (except 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)[reply]
@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. BD2412T12:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 important parts, anyhow) for contextual purposes. BarntToust (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. BD2412T02:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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! Johnson52423:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). BD2412T20:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. BD2412T23:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
The section referencing the founders’ previous involvement in adult entertainment ventures is not relevant to Valnet Inc.’s business operations and appears to be a violation of Wikipedia’s neutrality and undue weight guidelines. These companies are not owned by or affiliated with Valnet, and the inclusion of such information misrepresents the nature of the company.
I suggest removing or rewriting the paragraph to reflect only content directly related to Valnet’s corporate history.
Thank you for reviewing this. Leedev225 (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It establishes their background in online businesses and their working partnership and the events that transpired to them forming Valnet instead as another Canadian-based Internet business. It is relevant and is presented in a neutral manner, so there is no point in removing the information. It does not paint the subjects or company in a bad light by just stating a fact and is not WP:UNDUE. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs)18:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are essays and not policies or guidelines, so they are merely editorial suggestions. There have been some productive discussion about this at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Valnet article includes undue and misleading content unrelated to the company. I do not believe we should remove information outright simply because a mysterious new editor wants it removed. I have no problem with the information being revised or cut down, but it is not that large prose. I find using something like {{Further}} would only be necessary if the relevant details could not be adequately conveyed in quick succession, and think forcing our readers to locate information at another article when we can easily provide a brief overview here is a disservice. Regarding that Globe and Mail article, you may have been duped by the headline, which is misleading and most headlines are not reliable to go off of for information per WP:HEADLINES, but the actual article (archive) states the following (which actually doubles down on what TheWrap reported this year):
"While rollups can be controversial for financial or strategic reasons, Valsoft sports a different type of notoriety: the past of its founders. While their web profiles mention they became successful technology entrepreneurs in their 20s and employed more than 300 people, they don’t mention what their venture did: online pornography.
In fact, Mr. Youssef and Mr. Manos, who graduated from Concordia University with computer-engineering degrees in 2004, are two of the original co-founders of Pornhub, now the world’s largest pornography video site. (They got into the adult business after starting out in the affiliated online marketing business and finding out that porn sold better than travel products and supplements.)
They sold out in 2010, a year after the U.S. Secret Service seized US$6.4-million from accounts controlled by their personal holding company, Mansef, and long before the controversies that have dogged the business in recent years. Pornhub’s owner, which recently changed its name to Aylo from Mindgeek, agreed to deferred prosecution with US. federal prosecutors last month and admitted to profiting from sex trafficking." — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs)07:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the ping, I see your point (I didn't realize both were essays as I have been previously reverted with HATSTAND). I felt like your message rebuffed the commentator a bit much, so I replied.
The article was updated, but I see the exit was only afterwards in 2010. It doesn't appear clear if the mentioned email about the porn video was after the exit? I think your revising or cutting suggestions is good. IgelRM (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again to everyone engaging in this discussion. I appreciate the clarity that some essays mentioned (like WP:HATSTAND) are not binding policies. However, the core concern here does not rest on essays, but rather on actual Wikipedia policies that do apply directly:
The current section allocates disproportionate attention to the founders’ previous involvement in unrelated ventures. Valnet is a digital media company, not an adult entertainment business. There is no indication that these past associations are central to Valnet’s public notability or coverage.
According to WP:UNDUE:
“If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, it should not be represented as equally significant as the majority viewpoint.”
In this case, the vast majority of coverage on Valnet focuses on its acquisitions, brand portfolio, and publishing model. Only one indirect source (Globe and Mail, primarily about Valsoft) even mentions the adult business background — and it doesn’t tie that to Valnet’s actual operations or reputation.
2. WP:NOT (Policy)
Per WP:NOT:
“Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a means of promotion, propaganda, or instruction.”
And more relevant:
“Wikipedia is not a coatrack for subjects that are tangentially related.”
Including the full detail about adult entertainment ventures in the article about Valnet turns it into a coatrack for controversy unrelated to the business described. If this information is more appropriate for an article about the individuals or Valsoft (which it is), that’s where it belongs.
3. WP:V and WP:NOR (Policies)
The Globe and Mail article in question is about Valsoft, and does not claim that Valnet inherited or was influenced by any adult content ventures. That means interpreting Valnet through this lens violates:
WP:V: Claims must be backed by reliable secondary sources about the subject.
WP:NOR: We cannot draw connections not explicitly made by sources.
4. Proposed Neutral Compromise (Again)
To respect the interest in background context, I would support a compromise line like:
“Valnet was founded by Canadian tech entrepreneurs with prior experience in online ventures. The company is independent from other businesses they were involved with, including Valsoft and earlier digital platforms.”
This keeps it factual and relevant without giving disproportionate weight to material that risks misleading the reader.
My concern isn’t with factual accuracy. It’s with scope, weight, and relevance, which are explicitly addressed by Wikipedia’s binding editorial standards. I hope we can apply those principles fairly here. Leedev225 (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UNDUE, NOT, and V/NOR plainly do not apply here. We have good souring, and this isn't a subject where there are competing views of what happened. The content in question is highly relevant context - the company likely would not exist had these events not happened. MrOllie (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to revisit the recent changes to the "Background" section, specifically the paragraph now including the BBC report about child rape videos hosted by Interhub.
This material is extremely damaging and has no direct or even inferred connection to Valnet. It references:
A different company (Interhub)
A founder (Keezer) who is not part of Valnet’s leadership
Allegations from before Valnet was even founded
Including this in the Valnet article violates multiple Wikipedia policies:
WP:UNDUE: The paragraph gives disproportionate weight to controversial history irrelevant to Valnet’s business.
WP:COATRACK: Using Valnet’s article as a vehicle to surface unrelated adult industry controversies creates a coatrack effect.
WP:BLPGROUP: Including criminal allegations linked to a different company and founder unfairly taints Valnet and indirectly associates it with serious crimes.
WP:NOTABOUT: This article is about Valnet, not the adult industry, nor the entire history of its distant ownership circle.
One editor already noted:
“There is a tad too much on the issues that hit Brazzers and Pornhub… the paragraph does feel very much like a coatrack.”
I fully agree — if some background is necessary to understand the pivot from adult to publishing, it should be summarized neutrally, without bringing in damaging and unrelated criminal allegations that smear a separate entity.
Proposed compromise (if background must remain):
“Valnet was founded by entrepreneurs with prior experience in digital businesses, including adult content ventures, before exiting those holdings and transitioning into mainstream online publishing in 2012.”
No, that cuts nearly all of the relevant information. As I stated above, none of these policy links actually apply here - And 'WP:NOTABOUT' is not a shortcut to any policy on Wikipedia at all. MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the continued engagement. I’ve disclosed my affiliation with Valnet Inc. on my user page and am participating here in line with Wikipedia’s COI guidelines. I’m not editing the article directly, and I’m raising these points in good faith because they relate to scope, balance, and relevance — not to sanitize the page.
I’d like to focus on one recent addition in particular:
“In 2009, Interhub was said to host videos of the rape of an underage girl according to a BBC News report in 2020.”
The article clearly states that Interhub was operated by Keezer, who is not affiliated with Valnet. This event also predates the founding of Valnet by several years and has no connection to the company’s operations, leadership, or media coverage. Including this sentence in Valnet’s article risks implying an association with a highly sensitive criminal matter that Valnet and its founders had no involvement in.
I believe this crosses the line into undue weight, particularly when there is no source drawing a link between this incident and Valnet. It also introduces reputational harm through indirect association, which is a serious concern when articles touch on living people. Wikipedia rightly aims to avoid inserting sensational material into unrelated articles — especially when the topic is not covered in reliable sources about the subject itself.
I’d also flag one additional concern. Some of the current framing suggests that Valnet was founded as a result of Mansef’s financial issues or legal troubles. But no reliable source, including the Globe and Mail article cited, states this explicitly. Unless a direct link is made in coverage, implying that one event led to another constitutes original synthesis, which goes against core content policies.
I’m not questioning the relevance of mentioning the founders’ previous ventures — that’s fair and properly included. But I do think there’s an opportunity to improve this section by trimming detail that’s not directly relevant to Valnet’s history, and by removing especially serious allegations that are tied to entirely different individuals and companies.
I’d welcome any input on how we can revise this section to better reflect Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, verifiability, and relevance. Thanks again for the thoughtful discussion. Leedev225 (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't plan to provide any 'continued engagement' or 'input' as long as you keep posting AI-written nonsense on talk pages (see WP:AITALK). We're here to communicate with other humans, not to have time wasted by paid editors using chatbots. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I was simply trying to be clear and formal in how I raised my concerns. I hope we can focus on the substance, because the points I’ve raised still stand. Fair is fair, and I trust you’ll consider them in the spirit of upholding Wikipedia’s integrity and ensuring fair representation for all subjects and contributors.
I understand wanting to protect the page from biased changes, but I’ve followed the process: I disclosed my affiliation, didn’t edit the article directly, and raised concerns here on the Talk page.
I have but one question for you@Leedev225, are you making these suggestions to remove content in part or in whole to benefit the company Valnet in any way, such as to remove contentious material to make the company look better? Or are you making these suggestions out of your own volition? Do you truly understand the Wikipedia policies and guidelines you are mentioning and how they are applied or are you just having AI or a large language model summarize them for you? Do you have any underlining intentions or a stake to claim, or expect to receive any compensation, in having this material removed from Wikipedia? You did not answer some of these questions when prompted to do so at your user talk page, so I am asking them again here. I ask to ensure Wikipedia remains neutral and unbiased and that this article is not compromised because the company it is about doesn't want unflattering material included, which I believe is a natural concern to have here. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs)23:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already made all disclosures which you have yourself acknowledged. What has failed to be acknowledged so far are all the valid points I have made . Background information whether negative or positive should be included, as long as it is relevant.
As I said previously, the article clearly states that Interhub was operated by Keezer, who is not and was never affiliated with Valnet. This event also predates the founding of Valnet by several years and has no connection to the company’s operations, leadership, or media coverage. Including this sentence in Valnet’s article implies an association with a highly sensitive criminal matter that Valnet and its founders had no involvement in.
Could you find a reliable source that implies that Keezer is in anyway involved with Valnet?
If not, asking for a revision, is not an unreasonable ask.
Accuracy matters. Including misleading information on Valnet’s page undermines the credibility of the content and raises valid concerns about the author’s neutrality. 142.243.254.224 (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have only said you are employed by Valnet. You have failed to answer what your intentions are and what methods you are using to achieve this. If you fail to address community concerns, then your requests will not be met, and your deflections by attempting to get us to do work for you is not going to get you the consensus you want. You need to answer truthfully whether you will or intend to receive any compensation, such as payment, for the removal of this contentious material, and you need to answer whther you understand Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, undue weight, and conflicts of interest, and how they are applied. You also need to answer whether you are using artificial intelligence or other automated tools to make your responses, not just saying you are human. If you fail to answer these questions, then we will stop engaging with you. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs)00:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging that I did disclose my employment at valnet. I am not getting any additional compensation for the removal of this, quite frankly, dangerous material. I am simply an employee and have been for quite some time. I just find it frustrating that this kind of false information is out there.
I believe I understand Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, undue weight, and conflicts of interest, and how they are applied. I do think there is always room to learn, as one cannot know everything.
With regards to the use of AI, I used it in the beginning, and immediately stopped once you made me aware of the policy.I believe in honesty, and I hope you can appreciate my transparency here.
That is your personal opinion of your employer's coverage on Wikipedia. I find the optics of your request flawed and troublesome, and quite frankly, I am unconvinced by your arguments considering you are a biased involved party. Wikipedia ought to not be inflicted by the bias of those involved with the subjects of articles, and other editors in this discussion have already made suggestions for a compromise in handling this material. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs)16:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For context, Leedev225 has now disclosed on their userpage "I am affiliated with Valnet Inc. and will be participating on Wikipedia in accordance with its Conflict of Interest (COI) and Paid Editing policies. I will not edit articles directly, but may suggest edits or flag concerns on Talk pages or appropriate noticeboards for review by the community." — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs)15:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to make the observation that of course a history of Valnet is likely to include "Allegations from before Valnet was even founded", and content regarding all founders including those not currently with the company. That is the nature of history and foundings. BD2412T15:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. Just to clarify: Keezer was never a founder of Valnet, nor has he ever had any involvement with the company. That’s not in dispute, and it’s an important distinction here.
I agree that a company’s history can include context about its founders’ prior ventures. That’s already reflected in this article, and I’m not contesting that inclusion.
But there’s a major difference between including verifiable background on the actual founders, and inserting graphic criminal allegations involving a completely unrelated person (Keezer) and company (Interhub) into the article.
There is:
No overlap of ownership or leadership between Interhub and Valnet
No sourcing that ties the child exploitation case to Valnet
And no justification, under Wikipedia’s content guidelines, to include this in a page about a media company that had no part in it
Including this material risks creating an implied association where none exists, which is both misleading and unfair. This is not about omitting history — it’s about protecting the article’s integrity and scope. I'd welcome feedback on how we can revise this section to maintain relevance without introducing content tied to unrelated individuals. Leedev225 (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia; the linked policy says to to "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies" and this section here is entirely about negative criticism or controversy. The section title does not change that, as well as the policy even saying "in some situations the term criticism" is appropriate. My thought is that reputation is vague, I think reputation among writers was meant? If we were to apply the policy, I think we would integrate this section into the History section. IgelRM (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should also consider this sentence " Keezer began Pornhub under the company Interhub separately from Brazzers, and the businesses remained silent partners." Keezer has no relationship with Valnet's operations, and never has. There are also no verifiable sources that indicate that Brazzers and Pornhub remained silent partners. This sentence dangerously links Hassan to the scandal that took place at Pornhub. There is not reason to mention Keezer and his activities on a Valnet wikipedia page. Leedev225 (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of this seems relevant to the history of how the founders of Valnet entered the business of providing online content in the first place. One need not have a continuing relationship with an early partner for that early partnership to be a significant historical precursor to later ventures. BD2412T16:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, it is clear that the underage rape scandal affected only Keezer, so is there any reason why it is included on Valnet's wikipedia page? Is there any source that says that Keezer's illegal ventures had a direct impact on Hassan starting Valnet? I'm just trying to understand the correlation between Keezer and Valnet. Historical background is 100% relevant whether damaging or not, it just has to make sense. If Keezer did something wrong, I'm not sure why bringing it up on Valnet's page is relevant. Leedev225 (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The partnership could be easily cited (using a source the article already cites, even). This is a verifiable source, so I trust that settles your objection. Also - please don't raise issues like this in multiple sections. There's a whole discussion about this right above, so there is no reason to drag this section off topic. MrOllie (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not responding sooner (and this talk paragraph got filled with off-topic from above); the comparison of a criticism section for a company is fundamentally different than for a piece of media that gets reviews (like with the Battlefield Earth film example). Back on the original topic of the section name, I think the name "Reception" is generally only fitting for media although I perhaps prefer it over Reputation. My preference would still be on Criticism or a different name.
Further, we don't seem to understand each other about what I meant about CSECTION. I will try quoting directly: "Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged." What I was saying that per the guideline, criticism could be included in History (I have not suggested to remove it). To answer the question, I think one could mention an award the company received but I don't see how that changes much? IgelRM (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
.svg?lang=en){kind=small}
.svg?lang=en){kind=icon}
The redirect 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 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)
