Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film spoofs in Mad
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
— User:Jreferee, 04:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:LISTPURP||WP:LISTN (Wikipedia:Manual of Style)