Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Extra Credits 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 12:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Extra Credits episodes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

completely unsourced and no suggestion of notability jps (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources (in this case, the episodes themselves) do exist and can be added as such (since right now, they're simply linked directly). Having lists of episodes for series is common if the series itself is notable; Extra Credits is, and this list was likely split off to keep the main article a reasonable size. The content could always be merged back to Extra Credits if consensus is against having this article separate, but the content should not be simply deleted. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Userfy as there's no references and it'll need references for all the descriptions.  Ana  r  chyte   09:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Unreferenced" is not a deletion argument; it must be unverifiable to merit deletion. And here the article subject is mass-distributed works, which are obviously reliable sources for their own content. Only if the description veers into analysis or opinion (or facts external to those works) would we need secondary sources as references. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, excessive detail for a nondramatic, nonfiction series (and dramatic series are the only ones for which we maintain episode lists as a matter of standard practice, not just any notable series). The main article can note which individual episodes, if any, have received particular attention from secondary sources and why. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. As stated above the list links to the episodes themselves (either on EC's site or directly to the YouTube videos), in addition the article was created to split off the list from the main article of the show as far back as [May 2012] (At which point the main EC article shrunk from 48,123 bytes down to 9,706 bytes, and is currently sitting at 17,689 bytes) and adding ALL the content back into the main article would simply bloat it out (adding easily 106KB of data) to an unusable proportion for those wanting a quick run-down of the show in general. If people think the content of the article as it currently stands (and is being updated weekly at a minimum) should be moved off-site to a "fan site" or such, fine, just don't blanket-delete the effort spent into updating and maintaining the article over the past 3+ years. El Nero Diablo (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as WP:SPLIT from main article for size reasons. WP:GNG is not applicable as this is editorial content organization decision, rather than topic notability. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:27, 15 November 2015 (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.