Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rhett and Link Ear Biscuits 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 Delete all. There are no policy-based rationales that justify these lists. The mere existence of their more than 700 episodes doesn't justify creating a directory of all their episodes. Further, there's no discussion about whether there's independent notability for the individual segments, let alone justification for a directory about those segments. The argument that the list is "very useful list to complement their channel" is directly in the face of WP:NOTPROMOTION: Wikipedia does not exist to to promote Rhett and Link. - Ricky81682 (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Rhett and Link Ear Biscuits episodes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A directory of episodes of a show which doesn't even have it's own article. No evidence of any notability. So delete per WP:N and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. JacktheHarry (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer the from the same issues:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Adds s for each proper-name show title. All the shows have already been given sections at Rhett & Link.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 01:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And merge/delete (no redirect). At most GMM is used as one of many qualifiers for Rhett & Link, amounting to passing mentions.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 02:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Opposed. -- If you don't want for their content to be on a separate pages due to notability then at least Good Mythical Morning and Ear Biscuits need to be merged into the main Rhett and Link article since that is the current content they are known for besides the Rhett and Link brand. If they are merged then the article would be too long and that's why the content its on a separate page, just like any TV show that has several seasons, since the daily show its currently on its 7th season with over 700 episodes (as well as other shows of the same nature). I believe GMM should have its own page linked to the Rhett and Link article, just like the Epic Rap Battles of History article is linked to their creators. The GMM episodes page should be edited to be the shows' page, including the episode list it already has and The Mythical Show article to link it to the main R&L page as it is now. The Ear Bisuits podcast can be included on the main page, it does not have the same notability as GMM but its equally important to document the same way the Nerdist Podcast is currently on wikipedia. I do agree with the deletion of the Song Biscuits article and leave it as it is currently mentioned on the main Rhett and Link article. If the actual problem is the reliability of "mainstream" sources for Rhett and Link themselves and the content they produce then its not a fair way to qualify their work and notability, this discussion was already clarified back on 2011 when the Rhett and Link article was initially created, they have enough popularity on the web and that's their notability, new media cannot be judged the same way as mainstream media, if so all articles related to internet personalities should be deleted. I am willing to do all the changes I proposed if it will help to keep the articles on wikipedia. MyOCDismakingmedothis (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Opposed. GMM has 7 million subscribers on YouTube and could easily sustain its own page if one were to exist. I have found the list very useful in the past. I'm fine with the page remaining the same, but if anyone feels it's necessary to go ahead with the changes proposed above, I'd be happy to help. CocoaPuff310 (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Opposed. I agree that this article it's a very useful list to complement their channel, and if the main problem here it's beacause the GMM show doesn't have it's own article, you can just merge them to the main page, but this had already been said, the article would be too long, but that's not a reason to delete the entire article, we're talking about a successfully growing show, not the same as 4 years ago, so it deserves a proper article due their recognition in the media nowadays.M.FrozenRino (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC) — M.FrozenRino (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Using subscriber numbers, view numbers, growth rate etc. to justify the keeping of episode lists is a bad argument: Pewdiepie does not keep one. Good Morning America does not keep one. This subscriber since GMM Season 4 would like to ask you to read through the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST essay. In essence, these episode lists are likely to be deleted mostly because GMM etc. does not attract per-episode attention from adequate reliable sources to establish notability. That should never stop any of you to take the info to an external Rhett & Link wiki, or constructively contribute to Rhett & Link.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 12:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Subscribers, views and popularity might not be the best argument, but comparing Rhett & Link with PewDiePie is not an argument either, he doesn't have a daily show with a non-linear narrative. That follows the same logic portrayed on the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, just because he doesn't have a list, they shouldn't have it; the same way that most daily/weekly shows do have an episode, they should have it as well. This is not the best argument, but it is precedent. Epic Rap Battles has a list, Table Top has a list, Crash Course has a list, Geek and Sundry and the Nerdist Industries list most of its online work. The majority of these productions don't have adequate 3rd party sources but it is common knowledge within a certain number of people just like any specified and obscure content on the site. Wikipedia might not be a record of everything in existence, but at the end of it all is an encyclopedia, which is by definition a reference work of information on different branches of knowledge and the fact that people, given a specified branch of them, find the information useful means they should not be ostracized because the mainstream media doesn't recognize it the same way, and the fact that we are actually having this discussion is proof of that. MyOCDismakingmedothis (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * MyOCDismakingmedothis, you state on your user page "I'm a (Rhett-and-Link-fan-that-uses-Wikipedia-as-a-catalogue-to-make-it-easier-to-search-for-the-episode-where-that-one-little-thing-I-just-remembered-happened-and-now-I-want-to-see-again) person." Please be aware that Wikipedia is not your personal fanzine. Kraxler (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Kraxler, the discussion is not how Wikipedia is used (by me or any other user) but on the articles themselves, this was not the place of that comment, nor a personal attack was needed to make your argument. MyOCDismakingmedothis (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete all - Wikipedia is WP:NOTADIRECTORY or a cultural calendar, no coverage in secondary sources. Kraxler (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment. It seems that all the arguments for deletion are based not on the actual content, but what Wikipedia is not, which applies to how the articles are titled with "List of.." when there is no article with the main topic. The content (at least the GMM article) should remain on Wikipedia as it makes the main Rhett and Link article is related to more complete and comprehensive, which is what Wikipedia is for as encyclopedia. If any consensus is to be made on the comments above then the merge of the GMM article to its section on the Rhett and Link article is the most sensible thing to do. Just because some topics are of interest only to some people doesn't mean they shouldn't be included, but again my argument for the separate GMM page is the fact that the main Rhett and Link article would be too long; just like any long run TV-show has its episodes on a separate page it should follow the same logic, if not for "notability" then for formatting.
 * Merge/Delete I'm in agreement on the deletion of all articles mentioned but the List of Rhett and Link Morning Show episodes, which, if not merged, should remain as is due to being a complement to the main page its currently attached. MyOCDismakingmedothis (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment -- how about an actual article for the show, as opposed to just a list? Eman 235 / talk  13:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 02:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * - Eman235, if agreed this is the best scenario, an article for Good Mythical Morning. MyOCDismakingmedothis (talk) 03:42, 4 July 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.