Deletion of List of problems solved by MacGyver (3rd nomination)

Comment: per clear consensus in first discussion.   and  are not legitimate reasons for deletion.  Nominating for a third time is disruptive and pointy.  Sincerely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSCRUFT||WP:JNN)

Comment: this is the kind of article that makes Wikipedia a more interesting encyclopedia and information resource than Encyclopedia Britannica. ''MacGyver'' is a notable TV show. And "fancruft" isn't even a real word (if you think it is, go ahead and try to write a decent article about fancruft). Notability is not something that can be "established." In response to Jay32183, this article is note solely a plot summary (nevermind that the editor who proposed  recently expressed at WT:NOT that he wants PLOT removed from ). It's time for people who incorrectly use the word "notability" and who use the word "fancruft" to actually write articles on those topics. I would also ask the closing admin that if they decide to delete the article, please userfy it first under
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: an |indiscriminate collection of information. I also note likely |canvassing/|meatpuppetry, not to mention every |every possible argument to avoid in deletion discussion used, in every above ''keep'' reason
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:CANVASS||WP:MEAT||WP:ATA)

Comment: MacGyver solved a lot of problems, but there not all |notable and plus Wikipedia is not a fan site of anybody, I mean Robert Horry has hit a lot of game-winning shots, but you don't see an article called "List of Robert Horry's game-winning shots", do you? No, because they have been merged into his article, so what I say we do is merge Macgyver's problems into his article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (Wikipedia:Notability)

Comment: per . As explained above, most of the material clearly consists of |fancruft. If we really were to keep to relevant material in this article, it ''probably'' wouldn't be longer than a few sentences. Thus it seems that whatever notable information exists in there, it can be merged/included in the Angus MacGyver article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:FAN)

Comment: and cull), MacGyverisms are obviously notable (the word entered the English language), but most of them cannot be verified without looking at the episodes themselves making the content |unverifiable. We can use the ones referenced in outside sources as examples and mention a list of MacGyverisms in the external links section. Result: we retain the information and don't have a massive list of unsourced text. (Disclosure: my full username is MacGyverMagic
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Fails  by design. This article not only fails to present real world context, there's no room for its inclusion. This article is basically a spinout to keep trivial details off of the episode list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT)

Comment: to MacGyver.  The content is |verifiable but as for |notability, on its own I can't see this as more then , but it is quite viable as part of the parent article of the show that it belongs to
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: Fails  and probably some  issues. It reminds me a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (3rd nomination) and the interesting Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (3rd nomination). There is a strong point here that there is a book about MacGyer's skills. Well, i think this prove that MacGyer is notable and its skills are notable but this doesn't imply we need a full list if the skills
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT||WP:OR)

Comment: per |significant coverage in |reliable sources, including the http://www.amazon.com/Unofficial-MacGyver-How-Handbook-Working/dp/1887641467 two http://www.amazon.com/What-Would-MacGyver-Do-Improvised/dp/1594630240 books already mentioned above. Meets all content policies (, OR, POV). Claims of violating OT are based on personal opinions about being "indiscriminate", rather than on what the policy actually says. As  says, the "plot summary" here is appropriate as part of the :Category:MacGyver|larger coverage of the fictional work. And the reliable sources mentioned in this discussion alone already provide enough real-world context and information to justify plot details in this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV||WP:NOT||WP:PLOT)

Comment: Total , not all that notable. There's already a List of MacGyver episodes; this is basically a duplication of that, only more verbose. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: pure |excessive #PLOT|plot summary. Fails #INFO and E for absolutely no assertion of notability whatsoever
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOTE)