Deletion of List of Pixar film references (3rd nomination)

Comment: ANY article can atract OR, but that is why interested editors keep a watch on pages...  to |correct such through regular editing.  The deletion discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pixar film references|February/March 2010 resulted in a keep due to numerous sources being offered at that time... and was most compelling.  Its return to AFD by the same nominator Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pixar film references (2nd nomination)|6 months later simply attracted fewer editors. It is far better sourced than many lists and would overburden the Pixar article... unless the list is reduced to a trivial paragraph... but such reduction does not serve the readers. Note:  It was spun out of the Pixar article orginally as becoming too burdensome there.  No need to put it back and confound the original issue
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: can only be considered |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Regarding the nominator's criteria of this article being , I present the following WP-approved 3rd party sources that have covered Pixar's purposeful inclusion of self-referential items in their films
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: to the main Pixar article, and possibly also the individual film articles.  I disagree with the suggestion that this is original research, as sources have been provided that list many references in the films.  However, just because sources can be found for a long list of references doesn't mean it is appropriate for Wikipedia to have a complete list of them.  I would consider this article similar to having an article List of plays in Super Bowl XLIV, with a complete list of every play.  Such a list would be easily sourced, but I think almost everyone would agree that it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.  In this case, I think there is sufficient coverage of how Pixar puts references of this sort into their films that the concept of them doing so should be mentioned somewhere.  However, such coverage should be done in prose, giving examples of the most significant references, not as a list of all the references that can be found in any reliable source.  I think a long list of references like this is the sort of thing that  says is inappropriate for Wikipedia (even if it doesn't exactly fit with any of the examples given there).  I think that if this was rewritten as prose describing the concept of references in Pixar films and only giving the most significant examples, it would easily fit in the main Pixar article.  Very prominent references in individual films could also possibly be mentioned in the articles for those films
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)