Deletion of List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (3rd nomination)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes (2nd nomination)|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- 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY)