Deletion of List of film spoofs in Mad

Comment: a la ''Spy vs. Spy''.  I'd lean keep, per DGG, that "the importance of the magazine and in particular this set of features in 20th century popular culture is so great, that it's justified."  On the other hand, per Hammer, it's terribly sourced.  However, if it were |ka-blown-up, then it could only be re-created with great difficulty.  Can we incubate this one somewhere?  Or as a ''Mad'' editor would write, "Plop
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: MAD spoofs things, surprise, surprise; this is well documented and not in question.  There are probably a few very memoriable/notable spoofs that could be documented in the main MAD article, but to detail every spoof, specific to primary sources, is basically  and fails IINFO. (Eg: it is the equivalent of cultural references section which belong at a site like TV Tropes and not WP, unless they are noted by other source
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: Meets  as a valuable information source. Each entry spoofs a notable film (one where Wikipedia has an article) and is a good way for readers to locate a valuable social commentary on the film itself (by learning from Wikipedia that the commentary is in a Mad magazine and getting the magazine from the library). In that sense, the list also meets the navigation LISTPURP, but as a backward navigation page. All entries probably cannot be source to an independent source. I'm sure some can. How many can is a question that little effort is being made to answer, likely because of the lack of subsection in the article for independent sourcing. The "References" section probably should be renamed to something like "Notes" or "Index" and a new reference section be created for independent sources. NOT IINFO does not apply since the list a discriminate collection of information. The two NOT arguments could be raised are 'Wikipedia is not a directory' and 'Wikipedia is not a manual', but I don't see either of those fitting this situation.  provides the issue "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." If this makes its way to AfD again, I'd focus on the requirements . However, I think it's too late in the discussion to get consensus on that give all the posts above. Merely because the "entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability," does not mean that independent sourcing is not important for lists. Zero effort towards using independent sourcing is a slap to the requirement that coverage be from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The close should include a statement about independent sourcing to help get this list moving towards using those independent source that are out there
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:LISTPURP||WP:LISTN)