Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mad Magazine issues

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mad Magazine issues[edit]

Indiscriminate and looooooooooooong page listing what was parodied in every single issue of Mad. One of the sources is a blog, and a couple sources appear to be fan sites (e.g. the Mad cover site). I do not feel that such a directory could ever be useful. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is interesting and maybe even useful, but it is not an encyclopedia article. -Steve Dufour (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not good content. Perhaps each one could establish notability, but not as a list. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Sure, it's thin (because reproducing every Table of Contents on one page is inconceivable) but it's still an authentic guide to contemporary popular culture and politics as seen at the time (from Walter Mitty and the Army-McCarthy hearings to Stephen Colbert and Iron Man). It can't be easily reproduced in other ways, although a comparison with contemporaneous issues of, say, Esquire, TIME, or LOOK might well be enlightening. Many users once had collections of MAD that they wish they could still consult. Shakescene (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does it help the project though? It's basically a directory, and it's hard to source without using primary sources (i.e., the individual magazines). Plus, I don't think that the covers qualify as fair use when presented in this fashion, and no other magazine has a directory like this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are thousands of scholarly sources related to this topic. The nomination's objection that the article is too long but not useful verges on parody itself. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources about the impact of Mad parodies on culture, but do we really need a list of everything they've parodied? I think this list is definitely indiscriminate in nature. If there is any important content in those Google Scholar hits (which there probably is), why not just put it in the main Mad article? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors of the main Mad article are warned that This page is 96 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. There is much to be said and so we need several articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. There's still a better way to do this than by listing every single issue, methinks. Maybe a subarticle with a title like Cultural impact of Mad magazine? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an entirely reasonable subtopic split from an article on a highly notable subject. "It's a directory", "not an encyclopedia article" are very peculiar arguments to delete a list. "No other magazine has a directory like this" is WP:WAX; absence of x is not justification for excluding y. I view this as analogous to Category:Bibliographies, and would definitely welcome similar lists for other highly notable publications. The notion that it is indiscriminate seems wrong; the topic is precisely defined, with no ambiguity as to inclusion criteria. I share the concern that if lists like this are accepted as notable by virtue of their parent article, this could be used to justify excessive amount of detail (i.e. List of MAD issues, 1970-1980. List of MAD issues 1980-1990 etc.), but if we restrict them to one article, which in turn is restricted by WP:SIZE, then this concern is dissipated. The list has problems, sure, not least the images, but there are no compelling reasons to delete it. Again like bibliographies, sourcing is not too huge of a concern; simply listing publication details doesn't require anything stronger than primary sources. In summary, this is a list of narrowly defined scope, on an encyclopedic topic closely related to a highly notable subject. Skomorokh 20:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Skomorokh's got the right idea, though I see wisdom in potentially dividing this list into decades (with clear criteria limiting the info included to avoid expansion creep). If you'll indulge me in a moment of OSE, here's an example of a Playboy issues list that might give ideas for how to better present Mad's content. I do agree that the current format is phone-book-esque in length, and the fair use rationale for the covers is untenable unless I'm missing something, but those are issues that can be resolved without deletion. Townlake (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and divide as suggested. Core content for wp. Could well be expanded once its been divided. Personally, I think that for this magazine, the covers are sufficiently iconic to be suitable fair use if only selected ones are used. The others can be described in words. , DGG (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let me begin by mentioning that years ago I went looking for a book covering the history of magazines. True, there are books like Quentin Reynolds' The Fiction Factory, a history of Street & Smith covering all of their major magazines, but I wanted something with a history of all magazines. I found one survey of magazines written by an academic who had made a habit of buying any first issue he spotted, but it had a great many research gaps. I then realized the Borgesian futility of finding such a history, never compiled because (a) academics and librarians despised pop culture magazines (and thus never saw them as worthy of study) and (b) new magazines begin and fail at an astounding rate. Amazingly, there is someone, Phil Stephensen-Payne, who is attempting to document thousands of magazines in an accessible format of both text and visuals. When the Mad list appeared here, I found it of interest because it was being set up to show all covers and encompass all movie and TV parodies with links to the Wikipedia pages that were the subjects of the parodies. This meant if one read a parody and didn't get it, they could nevertheless read about the original subject they were unfamiliar with. I did some research to add source information, such as the fact that one Dragnet parody spoofs the TV series while an earlier one satirizes the radio series. It wasn't long before almost all the covers were removed. Next, someone decided to add the "debuts" of leading Mad artists, but when the names of certain artists were entered, it led to a dispute with a claim that only some artists, not all, should be listed. Next, a template was added requesting a context to justify notability. To respond to that, I wrote a fairly lengthy intro that was relevant, and I managed to cover aspects of Mad not covered in the main Wikipedia Mad article. That intro deals with some of the reasons the list is of value. Pepso2 (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak~~ delete - In theory, it is likely possible to construct a list article (or series of lists) that would be able to provide an encylopedic review of the issues of Mad. However, the article as it currently exists is a poor framework to start from to develop such an article. (And the covers certainly need to go at this point - none have any related commentary in violation of FU policy.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I consider this rationale invalid, per WP:PROBLEMS, WP:POTENTIAL. If anything, you have made an argument to stub the article, not to delete it. Regards, Skomorokh 23:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - In some few instances, and i think this is one of them, throwing the existing monster out and starting fresh is the best action for achieving the ultimate goal of a decent article. there is no sourced information here that we would be potentially loosing in such a process. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Calling the article a "monster" and indecent is a little melodramatic, I think. It does not necessarily follow that unsourced content is not valuable. The publication dates and parody targets seem accurate and uncontroversial, and are certainly of interest to readers looking for information on the magazine's publication history. Extrapolating from the traffic stats, this list gets 30,000 hits a year from such readers, with only one complaint about accuracy in its history.Skomorokh 23:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - only a little melodramatic. And since when is a Wikipedia article supposed to be a font of unsourced information? WP:V applies to list articles as well as to any other article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- furthermore finding a reliable source to make the identification of the target of the parody or source of humor is going to be lacking for 95% plus of the issues of the magazine leaving only original research. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - beyond furthermore I don't see why this is necessary. Some parodies' targets may be ambiguous, but most will be clear to almost everyone who was in the U.S. (and had access to a television) at the time. I don't see why secondary sources are needed to substantiate why "Dr. Kiljoy" refers to "Dr. Kildare", or what film "Mutiny on the Bouncy" is mocking. This contrasts, by the way, with the need for secondary sources, rather than an editor's mere opinion, to verify what "Mistress Mall's picture", "an icicle on a Dutchman's beard", a Brownist, a cinque-a-pace, or the "Picture of We Three" mean in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. (Some references are hotly debated among the scholars, while other red-hot topics of 1602 are now so hopelessly lost that Harley Granville-Barker advocated just cutting them in production as perplexing the playgoer for no good purpose.) Shakescene (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - because we require third party verifiable sources for all articles, including lists. And per the article itself, there are "Forgotten and obscure sources" and from an argument for 'keep' above "This meant if one read a parody and didn't get it, they could nevertheless read about the original subject they were unfamiliar with. I did some research to add source information, such as the fact that one Dragnet parody spoofs the TV series while an earlier one satirizes the radio series." the obvious is not always completely obvious. The article in its current form is counter-productive to producing a viable article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 05:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't feel like the description of the issues are unverifiable, since they can be confirmed with a hardcopy of the magazine. FUR problems aside, a list of issues does strike me, as DGG describes, as core encyclopedic content. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usefulness or the lack thereof is not a reason to delete. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper Skomorokh. Not an indiscriminate list, and verifiable. The magazine is notable. The list is useful. Edison (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - MAD issues have had quite a cultural impact. The cover images need to go from this list though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the only table-of-contents article that I have seen so far that I would vote to Keep. I am concerned that most of the links are to the thing being satirized, rather than any third-party comment on the parody provided by Mad. For related background I can offer two links: Talk:TATE ETC.#Wikipedia is not a directory, where it is argued that TATE ETC. is not an important-enough magazine to justify a table-of-contents article on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BSTJ papers, which is about the Bell System Technical Journal. In the BSTJ case the argument was that the papers and the journal were hard to find, and some of the papers were famous. Nevertheless the article was deleted, and I support that decision. In the current case I'd argue that the magazine issues are culturally important and that relevant commentary will be added over time, though I know that is hard to predict. I believe it is arguable that the magazine cover images can be included under Fair Use. We are trying to document the magazine issues (and dedicating an enormous amount of space by Wikipedia standards) so I think the covers can be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a similar reason as I gave for keeping the list of movie parodies. Notable and influential magazine; certainly notable enough to warrant a list of this nature. As I indicated in the other AFD, there are plenty of sources to confirm the accuracy of this material, starting with the magazines themselves, plus all but the last year or so's issues have been made commercially available on CD-ROM, too. Looks like a WP:SNOW situation to me. 23skidoo (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not an issue. I cannot understand why this was nominated for AfD. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do KEEP this article! This is valuable archival information not readily found elsewhere, and documents an American tradition and icon. MAD Magazine is part of our cultural history, and this article should be retained in that context. Drjpccm (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above comment moved from the talkpage by Skomorokh 21:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is Mad Magazine, after all -- how could you delete that? Forego (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listphobia is not a reason to delete. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Listphobia is not a reason to delete" is hardly a stellar reason to keep either. Skomorokh 10:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a well-written table on an extremely famous topic and it seems to me the only reason this was nominated is because it is a "list". Even paper encyclopedias contain lists and charts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good reasons. I quite agree. Should have said so in the first place ;) Skomorokh 13:47, 31 July 2008 (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.