Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighteon

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. Ultimately, only the creator advocates keeping the article, and the alternative to deletion, a merger, is contested with reasonable arguments. Sandstein 07:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brighteon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fake news website. Really can't find any in-depth coverage of it at all. Main claim to fame is apparently playing host to Plandemic; I considered redirecting there but it's not mentioned in that article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as article creator). It's not a news site, it's a video hosting site that bills itself as a YouTube alternative, which seems to meet WP:GNG. I've added a few more references; one got removed since I originally created the article for unknown reasons. To the extent that some of its user generated content might be "fake", well, that's the kind of useful information we should probably be documenting for our readers, in my humble opinion. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Kendrick7, I imagine that the articles from Reclaim the Net were removed because that website does not appear to be a reliable source. The remaining articles do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I used to feel the same way, but I've never seen Reclaim The Net post anything that turned out not to be true; their writers and editor(s), though clearly quite private individuals, seem to provide a fairly good clearing house of reliable information about internet censorship. In anycase, that's why Vox magazine and the Poynter Institute are there too. Belt and suspenders. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge selectively and Redirect to Natural News, where it probably merits a brief mention explaining what it is and that it exists. I'm yet to find significant coverage of this site apart from Natural News/Adams, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it makes much sense to merge a video hosting site into a conspiracy news website simply because they share an owner. If I were going to merge it anywhere, I'd probably just put it on a list of YouTube alternatives in Censorship by YouTube, alongside mentions of BitChute and perhaps others, as Google's censorship is the proximate cause of the sites notability, and would be useful information for readers there. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes 72.74.129.133 (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Rhododendrites Merge Ivote. No WP:SIGCOV for mike's YT alternative. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Roxy. The title would be better as a redirect to Brighton as a mis-spelling. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i would two 72.74.129.133 (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the article citing sources. PumpkinEditore (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This WP:PRECOCIOUS editor, who makes a completely unconvincing argument, has been on Wikipedia for less than one day and has already executed a controversial WP:NAC of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tutar Sagdiyev. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes I love this 72.74.129.133 (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2024 (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.