Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (3rd nomination)


 * 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  11:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: The articles cannot currently be deleted for technical reasons. I've requested steward assistance. See Steward requests/Miscellaneous.  Sandstein  11:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Nostalgia Critic episodes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Also included:

The parent article Nostalgia Critic is, at best, a marginally notable web comedy show. It could even be argued that the page (based on references currently in the article) should not have a page on Wikipedia. But that is for another time, maybe. What it has spawned is this omnibus page of episodes (List of Nostalgia Critic episodes), and ten other pages listing episodes by season (also listed). None of these pages has any notability, nor could any argument for inclusion be made for inclusion outside of an other stuff exists statement. So I recommend delete them all kelapstick(bainuu) 22:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Your argument holds no water. --104.193.236.43 (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way? --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral - Jeez, I luv Nostalgia Critic's coverage of movies. Therefore, gonna stay neutral & allow less biased editors to decide this article's fate. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I keep adding in a new article, and I don't mean to be mean, but I just love reading those NC articles, and I believe it's annoying to keep deleting one article like the 2018 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.71.191.0 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be more convenient, if you'd sign in. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I'm not that type of Wikipedia writer and editor. Even though I do create an account, I rarely use it. I just visit Wikipedia and read stuff, with little edits here and there. I don't do all those other big Wikipedia things, nor do I plan to, and I prefer to remain that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.71.191.0 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * At least you're admitting to being the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong delete for the "also included" articles with the dates in the titles. That is just ludicrously disproportionate over-coverage of a very minor topic and probably requires no further consideration but, in case any of the walnuts crave a sledgehammer, I'll just note that some of them have no sources at all and some are "referenced" solely to social media and primary sources. Not one of them has a single valid RS reference on it! Oh, and I hurt my foot stepping on a shard of walnut shell. Delete for the main list article too. That is not quite so egregious in its scope but, again, it is WP:V that dooms its content as well as a fair quantity of over-coverage. There are long paragraphs about individual episodes and nothing RS to verify them. In fact, there is only one non-primary source there at all; the very short Crunchyroll article and even that is not supporting the main list content, just some minor trivia about him getting a cameo appearance in a cartoon. Even if it were verifiable, 98% of this is fan writing unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. The best advice I can give to anybody who wants to keep this stuff alive is to set up their own fan wiki. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Question If the main article is gonna be deleted, where else am I going to find a list of all the Nostalgia Critic episodes? I come here for convenience. I understand if it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but I want to be able to see a full list of all the Nostalgia Critic episodes. And I don't know where else to turn. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 04:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * imdb has a good list. Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you I'll use that once the Wikipedia article is gone. It's less convenient but that's something I'm gonna have to get used to. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are also very extensive Wikia entries. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 04:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete for the year articles - unverified fancruft and over-coverage. For the parent article - I can't see anything that could meet WP:NOTABILITY, leaning towards delete. Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No delete. I truly believe that despite any problems, and even though there's other websites and wikis that show them, I say that all List of Nostalgia Critic articles should remain on Wikipedia as well. And that's gonna be my last comment. I'm not gonna say anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.71.191.0 (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You gave no valid reason for keeping it besides WP:ILIKEIT. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * delete Blatant fancruft- Not much else to say. Belongs on Tv tropes.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 19:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is an unnecessarily antagonistic deletion rationale. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -kelapstick(bainuu) 21:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete all From the second nomination, deleting, controlling, sourcing or merging this content has been an exhausting process, and you can see it from the page history where many admins have tried to enforce the consensus of the 2nd nom with a merge to the main NC article (first one was a drive-by that should be disregarded), but failed or just threw up their hands and gave up. We have little sourcing to this list; there is ONE non-WP:PRIMARY source in the entire lot. I've dealt with Filipino TV fan articles with better sourcing ratios than that. The entire article is a tangle and mess of headings where you'd have to be a CA superfan (I used to consider myself one, full disclosure) in order to make sense of any of it. There is no sense of continuity or uniformity of this article, with all kinds of table styles being used throughout the article, and lots of duplicative information (after awhile, you pretty much know that the brothers write it themselves, it's just rows and rows of a record scratch), and new fields being thrown in out of nowhere like running times for reviews. If this is going to be kept, and that's a very thin proposition for me now, there needs to be better sourcing and uniformity; as-is right now this is just a mess and it's why I've been ready for someone with the courage to AfD this to finally pull the trigger.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Literally no actual argument has been made except for "Other stuff exists" and "I can't see it being notable" and "It's too much work". Wikipedia is all about work. To say "I can't see" is forceful blindness. It literally meets every notability standard--Harmony944 (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way do they meet every (or any) notability standard? --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What? ????? The main Arguments against the article are the fact thats its a massive piece of Fancruft, meaning that it focuses specifically on a small group of people (the fans) liking it, and the fact that there are literally NO non-primary sources that verify this list. While wikipedia is built off of hard work, it is also built off of secondary sources, which are preferred over primary sources. I don't know what argument you are referring to with this; The nominator is calling otherstuffexists an illegitimate argument for keeping in the lede, notability is the basis of almost all AfDs and you can't just call failing notability a bad excuse to delete, and no one is complaining about work. How does this article "Meet literally every notability standard"? 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 16:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Says the guy with an extreme prejudice against it. Maybe sit this one out.--Harmony944 (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding any prejudices against the article, real or perceived, you still have not answered how this meets any notability standard.--kelapstick(bainuu) 16:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And to clarify, I have no prejudice against the article, I was just overly angry when I wrote my delete rational (I'm not sure why), But I changed It because It doesn't accurately reflect my feelings towards the article. I'm not advocating for its deletion because I hate NC, but because this article is, simply put, unencyclopedic.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 17:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When I see "Prejudice", in this sort of context, I read it like the legal use of the term. It means delete with prejudice against recreation, not with unfair prejudice in the original decision to delete. Similarly, in a legal proceeding, "dismissal with prejudice" means prejudice against refiling the dismissed action, not that the dismissal decision was itself born of prejudice. So, all I am saying here is that people should not assume unfairness due to this particular choice of words. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Money emoji would be well served to tone down the rhetoric in deletion discussions, including when replying to opinions which do not match his or hers. It would probably save a lot of angst. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry if I offended anyone with what i’ve said, and I did not mean to hurt any feelings with my deletion rationals. I don’t hate the article or anything, I just think it should be deleted. Sorry for not clarifying my thoughts earlier, and anyways, this is getting off topic- let’s get back to the discussion at hand.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 18:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete all, this is VERY poorly sourced; almost no secondary sources, third-party-sources or "sources known for having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It can go.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2018 (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.