Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes (2nd 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   no consensus. This may well be the AfD with the largest number of shockingly poor "Keep" votes ever, many of which appear to be from dubious sources, but since the article has since been re-written to be about the series, rather than an episode list for a series that we didn't have an article on, a no-consensus close seems indicated here, and I will rename the article to simply "The Nostalgia Critic". Black Kite (t) (c) 10:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable subject who makes videos and puts them on a website. Anything important could be merged into That Guy with the Glasses, but I don't think a stand-alone article is warranted. — Half  Price  20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB, lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete excessive plot summary and trivia. Even if trimmed down, we don't have a standalone article for just the Nostalgia Critic — sadly, he doesn't seem to be quite notable on his own, although That Guy with the Glasses as a whole is. (ETA: This list's first AFD was evidently a bad faith nomination.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 00:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 00:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I don't know that it's ever appropriate to have a list of episodes of a series of any kind that doesn't merit its own article.  postdlf (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note At this point, the debate was originally closed as Delete. It was subsequently brought to WP:DRV, where it was noted that the page had not had an AfD template placed on it, apparently through a script failure.  This debate should continue from this point. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong KEEP Noteworthy, very detailed, full of information, and well done. No reason to get rid of this. Many television shows have episode lists, so should this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying it's of good quality doesn't tell us anything about the subject's notability. See WP:PRETTY. — Half  Price  10:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: This list has multiple references to establish notability. The Nostalgia Critic show has been noted by reliable sources, as can be verified by this article and the references on the That Guy With the Glasses article.  Merging with that article would make it too large and so it would become a subject for splitting into daughter articles; which is a pointless cycle to go through as it is already split.  Episode lists are a standard and, to my knowledge, non-controversial form of list article. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The angry video game nerd has an episode list, nostalgia critic is just as relevant as him. Also the show is up to television quality, with each video being of the length of a standard tv show, so it is justified having an episode list like any other tv show has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.95.159 (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Half  Price  17:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep:I use this article to know what the next episode, nothing wrong with it, and the Critic is popular enough to have his own article. Man I hate edit conflicts. SeanWheeler (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But please show why NC warrants his own article. — Half  Price  17:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can create a standalone The Nostalgia Critic article if necessary. There are ample reliable references in this list already to do so (such as the Chicago Sun-Times, USA Today and Advertising Age).  I can probably add Entrepreneur magazine as well.  All of which will establish basic notability; ie. it is notable because it has been noted.  However, I don't really like that kind of article proliferation; I feel the current set of articles are sufficient and multiple articles just "dilute" (for want of a better word) the content on Wikipedia.  On the other hand, if the lack of a specific article for The Nostalgia Critic really is a serious enough problem that it is reason enough for deletion, then I can go ahead and do so (or ask an admin to move this list over the The Nostalgia Critic redirect and expand the lead into a full article, which is probably a better solution).  Afterall, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER.  I'm not trying to make a WP:POINT, it will be a viable article with viable referencing. I mean this honestly and, I hope, in good faith: if the lack of a Nostalgia Critic article is a problem, then I can fix that problem by creating one. Article creation aside, I do not, therefore, consider your argument about the lack of notability to be valid. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The first ref is the best one, but even that is more focused on copyright and 'That guy with the glasses' as a whole. The 2nd ref is primarily just about Channel Awesome and has only one paragraph on the NC. The 3rd ref is also more about Channel Awesome and the NC gets one sentence. The 4th ref is primarily about blip.tv and even Channel Awesome only takes up less than half the article. The NC gets 1 paragraph. The 5th ref is a tweet and so can't really tell us anything. The last two refs are Channel Awesome ones and so not independent of the subject. My conclusion from this is that whilst coverage is certainly reliable, it is far from significant. — Half  Price  19:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What in your mind would be significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThAlEdison (talk • contribs) 22:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I understand that it is a matter of opinion. I'm not sure exactly what I would class as significant, but this isn't it and I doubt I'm alone in thinking that. — Half  Price  22:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete "I use this article to know what the next episode, nothing wrong with it," Wikipedia is not a directory. Or TV Times (if that is still going...) If the subject of the episodes isn't notable enough for an article, I can't see any reason why a list of the episodes should be. Peridon (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep It failed to be deleted last time, and we've documented AVGN's episodes, so why not this as well? It would only be fair seeing as how he's a very popular. He's actually got quite a bit of popularity. He is noted and Channel Awesome even has its own little template box. Nostalgia Critic is probably the number one draw of the entire site as well for a great many people who visit it so I'd say that He's quite notable as is his show. It would be nice if this were linked back in now. Since this we can see he IS notable. Klichka (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Further more, evidence is posted by others that show that he is notable, there are several honorable publications that have talked about him. He is the headliner of a big entertainment website. I'd say we need to bring back the Nostalgia Critic article as well. You'd have to delete the AVGN Episode guide as well if you want to kill this. There are also others that need to die as well. You also have a history of attempting this kind of deletion and I am beginning to suspect a bit of ill-faith from looking at your records. Also, I'd say that the deletion of this is chained to the other articles you demand deleted and the arguments of against Spoony are even stronger here and that looks like it stands a great chance of being kept. I see no reason to show bias here, especially to someone more notable than Spoony. Klichka (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to Nostalgia Critic. The sources in the article support an article of that title but only weakly support the current title (and I can't find anything better).  The article will need to be refocused, but the list of episodes would largely end up staying as a major part of the article (though likely significantly trimmed).   Hobit (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree there could be a Nostalgia Critic article, but this should still be a separate article, like any other in lists of television series episodes.ThAlEdison (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Haon 2.0 (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC) BigJohnnyCool (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is a fairly culturally significant series. At the very least, keep the episode list but leave out the minute details or something.- JustPhil 20:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * VERY Strong Keep. If anything, it serves as a guide to one of the most notable Internet reviewers out there, kinda like AVGN. Also, while this is slightly better than That Aussie Guy's attempt at deleting this, I don't find your argument to be the slightest bit convincing given your track record. --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * VERY VERY VERY Strong Keep. I agree with the "keep" users above me. This helps serve as an informative and organized list, and there is nothing wrong with it. I have enjoyed it and its helpfulness for many a moon, and there is no very good reason for getting rid of it. --
 * Delete we really can't have an episode list for something which itself is neither notable nor verifiable enough for an article, and "episode" lists for youtube videos are a bad idea anyway. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources in the current article would appear to be enough for GNG for the series. is about it's role in a copyright dispute. USA today has two short paragraphs of coverage.  the Guardian has 3 pretty long paragraphs (and more on the author/creator).  Roger Ebert links to it (yeah it's really short, but it's frickin Roger Ebert saying good things about it).  While short, USA today, the Guardian and Roger Ebert all count for something and the techdirt article has plenty. Hobit (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I agree with the "keepers." This episode guide is informative and organized, I see nothing wrong with it. I've also enjoyed it and much like most articles on Wikipedia that are about episodic series', It's helpful for other people to watch any episode that interests them. Getting rid of the list wouldn't be very helpful for Wikipedia's article on the Nostalgia Critic.
 * Comment - Looking at the article, it does appear that it should work better titled as "The Nostalgia Critic" since it has a lot of content that isn't the episode list. NotARealWord (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wow, this is a real minefield now. I pity the admin who has to close this! I'm not going to reply to every keep here, as most of them are nothing more than 'it looks nice', and some of the users don't even have talk pages. But, for the purposes of a proper discussion, I will reiterate my point mentioned above: I do not think the subject warrants a WP article. Coverage is reliable but not at all significant. And then of course you have the question of the validity of lists of internet/YouTube episodes. — Half   Price  19:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've mostly said what I think I need to say but I want to comment on that last part: 1) These are not "YouTube" videos; they are professional internet-based videos and it unfairly demeans them to label them as merely "YouTube episodes." 2) The fact that they are distributed via the internet rather than traditional broadcast or home media should be irrelevant (and highly ironic for a discussion taking place on Wikipedia).  There should be no "question of the validity of lists of internet/YouTube episodes" separate from the normal inclusion criteria or we start violating WP:NPOV.  While some users in this discussion may be guilty of WP:ILIKEIT; the WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach is no more valid. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If The Angry Video game Nerd gets an episode list, so does the Nostalgia Critic.  Rusted AutoParts  (talk) 9:51 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not necessarily. Each article stands alone. Whatever it is that you are mentioning might well deserve deletion itself. Having just looked at it now, I feel that the comparison between the two lists is justified, and that the other one should go too. If I was any good at getting things into AfD, I'd probably nominate it myself. As it is, I'm sitting here, hoping... Peridon (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have my own suspicions of trollage behind this proposed deletion. While they aren't as strong as they were when That Aussie Guy tried to get it deleted a while back, they're still there. For example, I can't trust AFD's that are biased against so-called "YouTube videos" when in fact said videos have their own website. Also, I went Wikisurfing a couple of days ago and discovered a (minor) rampage against Wikiarticles on That Guy with the Glasses here on this Wiki. If anything, that's not a really good track record. --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never been accused of trolling before, but I'm glad you've been looking through my contributions! I have proposed 1 page that is linked with TGwtG loosely, and have commented on a few other 'Channel Awesome' AfDs nominated by others, but that's just because I've stumbled across them all recently and believe that several of them don't deserve a place on WP. I nominate pages covering all areas. I have no reason not to dislike this person or the website he works on. I live in England and don't use the web much outside of WP. The majority of my edits are to do with English football. So don't worry, I'm no troll! — Half   Price  22:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Split I believe the stuff in the introduction section has enough notable secondary sources (3-5 depending on whether you count the Techdirt and Twitter sources, also all of the secondary source articles are independent of each other) to meet WP:WEB, but the section is longish. Turning that into a separate Nostalgia Critic article would provide a better foundation for this article, and it would allow the intro to be trimmed.  Because the series consists of 20-30 minute episodes and uses a distribution site that is non-public (i.e. not YouTube, although episodes occasionally end up there).  I think that the remaining "list of episodes" article should exist and follow the guidelines in "List of ..." structure.ThAlEdison (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have been using this page as a guide of the episodes. How about removing the intro since the page That Guy with the Glasses already covers it, but keep the episodes list like before. (Emigdioofmiami (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
 * You use it 'as a guide'? Wikipedia is NOT A GUIDE. Can anyone writing 'keep' give an actual valid reason? Sorry for being a moan, but this is getting a bit silly now. — Half  Price  11:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep This article is a very convenient source for information on the Nostalgia Critic episodes. --JFP (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Very to Infinity Strong Keep Side with Al, ditch the long intro but keep all this episode info. It seems fair since the AVGN episode guide is still up and not at risk of deletion! WolfRisingSun (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep & Split There seems to be enough notability for the show to have it's own article & a list of ... episodes article. Jarkeld (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the proof of notability? — Half  Price  18:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Cleanup Remove most episode content summaries. Knowing every point he makes about the films is not necessary. Just list the episode names and which film he reviews, but maybe keep content of Old vs. New and Top 11 episodes. -- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This article should be kept. If anything, remove unnessary trivia and detailed summaries. Besides a few minor issues, there is no reason why this article should be deleted. It's a convenient source of information, and the show is popular enough on the Internet for this article to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.243.144 (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2010 (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.