Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nostalgia Chick


 * 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   redirect to That Guy with the Glasses. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The Nostalgia Chick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I redirected this in February, but the redirect was undone bysomeone claiming there are sources. However, a search of Google News and Google Books failed to reveal any coverage of any kind, significant or otherwise. Suggest deletion or merging to That Guy with the Glasses. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to That Guy with the Glasses, where a paragraph can be added in the "shows" section. Not a remarkable show, should have remained a redirect.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 19:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * redirect - there is no sourced content worth merging. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I had no involvement in un-redirecting this page but I do think, the Nostalgia Chick is notable enough for her own wikipedia page. Nile Man 234 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * and your assessment that she is notable enough for a page is based on what? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep Per sources on talk page and those that I found when doing research for the nostalgia critic that I didn't get around to adding.--Coin945 (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum: here is a list of links I have collected so far. I believe that this is more than sufficient to justify the article's existence.--Coin945 (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the articles are from blogs on blogspot/tumblr/wordpress. Read WP:RS for what counts as a reliable source (generally content on open-access platforms doesn't count). The only article which counts as reliable, in-depth coverage seems to be the Huffington Post article, and even that's not very detailed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Sure, some are. But many are from sources like imdb, Salon, The Huffington Post (as you pointed out) and Geekosystem (whose founder Dan Abrahms gives it credibility. In the case of the interviews and podcasts, The Nostalgia Chick gives valuable information in them - does it *matter* if the person asking the question is merely from a Youtube channel and not the head journalist of The New York Times?--Coin945 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost none of those links seem like reliable sources. I doubt any of them will save the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What about in regard to my question in interviews? Some are official interviews of various comicon-esque functions.--Coin945 (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those interviews seem to be mostly be YouTube links. The ones that are not YouTube do not seem reliable. Beerest355 Talk 19:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be implying that there is something inherently non-notable about YouTube clips. This is not the case. If it is on the official channel of an organisation, then that is fine. Even then, some interviews may be valid, the access I had to them was only via a YouTube video uploaded by a random Youtubber. So what one would do in this case is to cite the event (and interview) itself, INSTEAD of the youtube video. It's like someone using some information from a Wikipedia article for an assignment and then citing the book that the information from sourced from not the Wikipedia article itself. Just because you access the information from a certain source doesn't mean that is the original source itself. And in this case the original sources are notable.--Coin945 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Note I'm not vote fishing; I've simply asked on the Nostalgia Critic talk page for users there to weigh in their opinion and perhaps gather sources I've missed.--Coin945 (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2013 (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.