Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Channel Awesome shows

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 merge to Channel Awesome. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Channel Awesome shows

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources, nor can I find any, so the list does not seem notable enough for a freestanding article. Wikipedia is not a directory. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be the necessary reliable sources to establish sufficient notability to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E3E:DFF0:C96E:DC06:8FA4:6E75 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into (and possibly cut merely a list without descriptions) either That Guy with the Glasses (the specific Channel Awesome website most of these people are on) or Channel Awesome. No reason for this list to have its own article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't bother to merge. We are getting into ridiculous levels of fancruft on this comparatively obscure topic already. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Orange Mike. Probably Salt it as well. GamerPro64 20:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The other contributors aren't as covered as The Nostalgia Critic, and thus the massive list is cruft. But maybe a few of them can be listed on That Guy with the Glasses and Channel Awesome. It is popular, and is getting more pageviews than another notable caustic online critic. igordebraga ≠ 04:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Channel Awesome as argued by Igordebraga and Doc Strange. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as argued by Orange Mike and GamerPro64. No need to merge to Channel Awesome because you'll just be moving the persistent vandalism that this page has gotten to the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E3E:DFF0:8939:1414:5FF3:80AD (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — 2602:30A:2E3E:DFF0:8939:1414:5FF3:80AD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge only the most basic information into Channel Awesome, which at the moment has no content on the shows, and punts to the list. The list seems to be more about the contributors than the shows, but at the minimum the "see also" on Channel Awesome needs to be removed and it would make sense to put basic info on the shows in. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Channel Awesome as per Doc Strange. Jarkeld (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list is only about the people working for them at one point or another and not about the shows. It also attracts vandalism. This page and information on the page does meet that standard that Wikipedia is known for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:2e3e:dff0:8115:118f:87c7:7244 (talk • contribs) — 2602:30a:2e3e:dff0:8115:118f:87c7:7244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- "It attracts vandalism" is not a reason for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe so but the other two points are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E3E:DFF0:886B:724F:1873:C78C (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is about shows on Channel Awesome and it states the person and the show(s) that person has. The second point: which standard hasn't been met? Please provide (a) specific standard(s). Jarkeld (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the people list don't have any reliable sources proving that the are even apart of it at all and the standard is just that you need reliable sources to justify an article of any kind. A page that lists people that might or might not be on that website is 100% unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E3E:DFF0:886B:724F:1873:C78C (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether they are a part of that site can be ascertained by the site itself (primary source). Whether they are suitable for separate articles must be established by coverage in reliable secondary sources. Jarkeld (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've just semiprotected this page for 12 hours due to IP-hopping vandalism. If any unregistered users want to comment during the protection, please do so on the talk page; I encourage other editors to move those comments here during that time. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the notable shows like BMB into the Channel Awesome page.- Just Phil 22:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.