Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

References do not give verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - This has come up because I could not give the author of Draft:Nostalgia Critic (season 10) any good reason why his article was repeatedly deleted and this one survives. To my mind, the sources are nowhere near good enough. Deb (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - On the topic of the Nostalgia Critic, Nostalgia Critic (season 11) might also need to be looked at for the same reasons regarding reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:24C2:698:D0A1:B3FD (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - You are right. I moved Nostalgia Critic (season 11) to draft until we settle this matter. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to get content deleted, you need some foundation in relevant policy and guidelines, understanding of the subject matter, and some basic due diligence on the content's potential and its history here. I've pointed out twice that the past AFDs are listed and linked to on the talk page (which no one but me had looked at, apparently), so why you thought (as you commented above) you had to search for them by title is unclear. I've also linked to the relevant procedure for every step that should be followed before nominating an article for deletion so you and the other editor can educate yourselves, in addition to a number of relevant policies and guidelines that you and they should read and become familiar with (those hyperlinked acronyms are not decorative, and they are mere "wikijargon" only if you have not actually clicked on them and read those pages to understand them and how to apply them). I've even attempted to point the discussion in a direction that would be more fruitful, one more focused on an understanding of the subject matter (which no one has really talked about). Short of writing everyone's comments/arguments for them, I don't know how much more handholding I can do. postdlf (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Why the hell delete useful stuff like this?! are you guys crazy? how will wikipedia fruitition if everything will be deleted?! that doesn't make sense at all!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.18.83 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Your nomination does not include links to the prior AFD discussions. postdlf (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be completely honest with you, this is my first time nominating an article for deletion. I was almost guaranteed to not get everything. Deb and I nominated this article for its inadequate citations, all drafted by the creator James Rolfe. I want someone else to include the links to the prior AFD discussions. There is no reason why List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes should of been accepted, and for any other discussion to vote to keep it. I do not believe the previous List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes discussions will be useful because they allowed the page to still exist, a page that failed to give verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If there was an earlier deletion discussion, could you send us a link to it? It's my fault if User talk:Cardei012597 got that wrong. Deb (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The history of prior nominations is on the talk page, which the nominator (and you as well, it seems) should have reviewed WP:BEFORE starting this AFD. I think there's also been a failure to review the edit history of the article, as there seems to be a misidentification of the creator (or perhaps I'm just getting confused by the aside regarding unrelated content above); this page was split from the parent article over ten years ago and edited by many different accounts since then. postdlf (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are referring to deletion discussions about Angry Video Game Nerd, not about the article that is currently under discussion. Deb (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, and this again was all evident from the talk page. The first one for this page was bundled with Articles for deletion/The Angry Video Game Nerd. There were two more that did not include the parent article, just this page: Articles for deletion/List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes and Articles for deletion/List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes (2nd nomination). If you are going to nominate pages for deletion, or to help others nominate pages, you need to get better at doing due diligence beforehand. This is not only a requirement per WP:BEFORE, but the lack of careful review and consideration shown here also rather undermines any confidence one might have in your statements or rationale. postdlf (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the problem now. The article was moved in 2015, so that previous deletion discussions, instead of being where "one" searched for them, were actually at Articles for deletion/List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes. You surely must have realised this immediately, but you preferred to make patronising comments casting aspersions on other people's actions, not giving "one" a lot of confidence in your abilities as an administrator. Well, since the last discussion was in 2011, I don't see why we shouldn't have another one now. Deb (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See below. postdlf (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just find it contradictory that many wikipedia editors feel that List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes is fine, while any attempt to split the page Nostalgia Critic is detested, as they have the same exposure in the media. I do not believe the current situation to keep List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes and remove any list of Nostalgia Critic makes any sense. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you don't actually want this page deleted, but that you want another page included? postdlf (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just want to know why List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes is fine, as the page itself does not have references specifically about the episodes that give verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners. I know its a split page, but that should not mean that its ok to not have reliable references. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is at best incomplete. All of your comments seemed focused on the current state of the article rather than its potential ("the page itself does not have references" ≠ "no references exist"), which is contrary to deletion and editing policy. There is also no requirement that individual episodes of any notable series be themselves independently notable (i.e., merit their own articles) in order to be listed. The better question is whether this is an appropriate level of detail for coverage of this particular series, on which you have offered no insight so far. postdlf (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * However, Notability_(media) does say that "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone". Surely you don't expect a new editor to offer "insights" that you haven't thought of yourself? Deb (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The policies I'm talking about are WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, as well as WP:BEFORE. See also WP:SPLIT, WP:LISTPURP, and WP:STANDALONE for relevant guidelines here. I don't know what point you're trying to make, but what I expect is everyone to try harder. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's extremely difficult to follow what you are trying to say or understand what you are trying to achieve. If you have an opinion as to whether the article should be kept or deleted, please state it instead of obscuring your meaning with wikijargon. It's basic etiquette. If the new user was familiar with every individual policy, he would be a bureaucrat (and I'm sure you wouldn't like that). If you can't participate constructively in the discussion he is trying to have, in language he can understand, you may as well not be here. Deb (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't bother, especially if you are not going to lodge a vote. Deb (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The AVGN episode list should be kept, following the same merits as traditional television or other notable web series. It was also a notable show on GameTrailers, and having the episodes dates (GT release versus YT release) is very helpful. I'm not a fan of the show for its cussing, but there's no denying that AVGN is one of the leaders in the retro gaming community. I encourage others to find good sources to sustain this episode list. --LABcrabs (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, I see no argument presented that would justify overturning the past consensus on this page that it is an appropriate WP:SPLIT, and no argument at all that is rooted in a demonstrated understanding of the subject (as would be necessary to have a meaningful discussion of the merits of splitting). The episodes are reliable sources for their own content so I don't see an inherent issue with sourcing either. And as the series as a whole is indisputably notable, and the episodes comprise the series, this would then also pass WP:LISTN. There is no need for the episodes to be independently notable such that they would merit their own articles. The whole motivation for the nomination seems to be a new editor complaining about what they think was inconsistent treatment of other content, i.e. WP:WAX. postdlf (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I love the hypocrisy of experienced editors choices. List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes is fine, while any attempt to split the page Nostalgia Critic is detested, as they have the same exposure in the media. Go ahead, allow list of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes to remain without sufficuent references, but lets all fight to prevent ANY episode list page for Nostalgia Critic. He is just some random guy no one knows, we don't need lists for his reviews, especially the crossover episodes he had WITH AVGN! Whatever, you are supreme leader, what you experienced editors say is always right. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've had no involvement with that other subject; you should be talking to whatever other editor(s) participated in that decision rather than targeting other articles. postdlf (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.71.249.229 (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. -- PATH SLOPU (Talk) 03:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. -- PATH SLOPU (Talk) 03:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Its a valid content fork. Be it the internet or television, a notable show can have an article listing its episodes if its too long to fit comfortably in its main article.  I watch most television shows over the internet from their official websites or various services instead of on a television.  These episodes are as long as those made for television would be.   D r e a m Focus  17:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   23:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep content is encyclopedic.Mgbo120 (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2019 (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.