Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parodies featured on Arthur 2


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Parodies featured on Arthur
First nomination can be found here. That closure was taken to deletion review, where no consensus to endorse or overturn the deletion was found. As a result, the article is being relisted here to generate more consensus. The deletion review closure can be found here. For the record, I have no opinion on whether or not to delete. M a rtinp23 13:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article cites no sources so fails WP:V, and smacks of WP:OR. Furthermore, the atricle is a compendium of trivia violating WP:NOT -- Whpq 14:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I like the article and it has interesting information, but I think it's a bit too much trivia for Wikipedia. Maybe the important facts should be merged into the main Arthur article? We don't really need a list on every parody. Jayden54 15:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, it is impossible for this article to be written without using original research, as no reliable sources have studied it. Seraphimblade 15:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:V and WP:OR, but leave a note at Talk:Arthur (TV series) so admins interested in tracing sources can find this article in the logs.- Mgm|(talk) 19:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not a major part of the encyclopedia, but will be of interest to some users, and should remain accessible. Could be merged and redirected to the main Arthur article, but this smacks of unnecessary work. Newyorkbrad 23:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Whpq, trivial fancruft. Pete.Hurd 06:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no secondary sources, not encyclopedic in scope. Eluchil404 08:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced and OR. Shimeru 06:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any independent source for these statements ? Ifnot, delete as original research. -- Simon Cursitor 08:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no secondary sources, not encyclopedic in scope. Eluchil404 08:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced and OR. Shimeru 06:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any independent source for these statements ? Ifnot, delete as original research. -- Simon Cursitor 08:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said last time, Keep or delete everything in the category "In Popular Culture". Matty-chan 12:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information]]. --Rory096 21:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Fails WP:NOT, and looks like a lot of OR. WarpstarRider 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If you want it to not be original research, try TV.com. It talks about the parodies in the allusions section on the episode page. Matty-chan 03:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please add those references to the article then. JoshuaZ 03:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, OR, unverified. Should have been deleted the first time around, where consensus was clear to delete.  Proto ::  type  10:05, 1 December 2006 (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.