Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural references in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy (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 Delete.  Nish kid 64  02:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

This article was nominated before on the basis of unsourced original research. It ended as no consensus. Seven months later, it still hasn't gained any sources to back up its claims. How do I know that the "references" are actual, intended references or editors grasping at straws? ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 00:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is no more than a large number of assumed similarities between the scripts of The Grim Adventures and other unconnected film scripts. This is clearly WP:OR, and if these parallels are accurate may indicate plagiarism, possibly legally actionable, on the part of the scriptwriters of The Grim Adventurs. But it still is not encyclopedic.--Anthony.bradbury 00:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, pure nonsense, clearly original research and unverifiable. Terence Ong 04:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep wait for sources--Juju 04:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I waited since June. The onus is on you find some actual sources. '  (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 05:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research, but worse, nonsense. Avalon 05:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as original research. Could be also nonsense. Big  top  06:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, trim unlikely. Most of these are glaringly self-evident. --tjstrf talk 06:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, then you can find some sources to back up your self-made claims! No, you don't get off WP:V and WP:NOR by calling it "self-evident". If we're going to make exceptions to those undebatable rules, it's not going to be "Trivial crap in some cartoon". '  (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 06:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Anthony.bradbury. While interesting and somewhat obvious half the time, what exactly makes this important? Even if every single one of these were to be reffed (next to impossible, I'd say), it'd still be glorified trivia. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete absolutely unsourced original research. Agent 86 07:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Basically an article which made entirely of unsourced fancruft trivia original research. Most current day US animation shows, sitcoms etc have multiple "cultural references" per episode . Its the nature of having to write gags for these things. So what? Bwithh 08:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. There's a lot of free websites out there for stuff like this, but it's not Wikipedia-worthy.--Prosfilaes 09:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced, and too trivial for an encyclopedia.-- danntm T C 16:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree topic appears to be WP:OR, no evidence of WP:N, no WP:RS. --Shirahadasha 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge anything verifiable into the main article and delete this article.-- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 22:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete-list of OR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete - fails WP:OR, and fails WP:RS. -- Whpq 18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:NOR  Insane  phantom   (my Editor Review)  03:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NFT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:01, 19 January 2007 (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.