Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of So Random! sketches

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. postdlf (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of So Random! sketches

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Somewhat of a fandom carbuncle this one, going below the radar as it's only going to be of interest to fans. Anyway, this list feels highly inappropriate as it's never going to be sourcable or verifiable in a reliable way and is therefore wholly OR. It's also content that a fan wiki would be better off with given how limited the scope of interest is and is hard not to call fancrufty though I don't like saying that. In all, it fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR and it's a bit odd how anon editora way outnumber registered users, doesn't mean anything but I find it curious nonetheless. tutterMouse (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- yeah, it's inherently WP:OR and fancruft. This article is hopelessly unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Bonus internet points to the nominator for the phrase "fandom carbuncle". Reyk _YO! 10:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is fancruft, and unencyclopaedic. --ceradon (talk • edits) 13:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable. --TL22 (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editors. Pure fancruft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.