Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mad issues (1952–59)


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 11:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Mad issues (1952–59)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a directory and I don't see a reason to list every issue the magazine has ever put out. Along with this nomination:
 * List of Mad issues (1960–69)
 * List of Mad issues (1970–79)
 * List of Mad issues (1980–89)
 * List of Mad issues (1990–99)
 * List of Mad issues (2000–09)
 * List of Mad issues (2010–present)  Gloss •  talk  03:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete all. A list of every feature of every issue of Mad? That really is mad. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN being covered in sources such as MAD: Cover to Cover : 48 Years, 6 Months & 3 Days of MAD and Completely MAD: A History of the Comic Book and Magazine. WP:DIRECTORY is irrelevant as that is directed at commercial directories rather than bibliographies and other types of reference list. Andrew (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Using the abstract given on "Amazon", it would appear both of the books that you mention are more interested in the covers and not the content of the magazines themselves. I do not see the justification for having a list of issues with contents based on these references (which do not appear to be used in the article in any case). WP:DIRECTORY may not be relevant, but WP:INDISCRIMINATE point 1 would appear to be relevant.
 * No, WP:INDISCRIMINATEis irrelevant too because this is a list which does not go into excessive detail about any of the particular contents. Andrew (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In your opinion it is not excessive, in mine it is. Op47 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Thankyou Gloss for letting me know, had you looked on the talk page of List of Mad issues, you would know what I really think. Unfortunately, if this lot is deleted (and I can see your point and clarityfiends even more succinct point) then List of Mad issues would need to be deleted as well (merging some content into the parent article if you really must). List of Mad issues was nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/List of Mad Magazine issues and the result was keep. Personally, I would stuff a nuke under this insanity and get on with something worth doing. Not even Mad magazine is mad enough to list this lot. And if this article piqued someones curiosity then there is no way to obtain the relevant issue. Anyroad, I refrained from nominating it for deletion because it is bad form to repeatedly nominate articles for deletion and that is the only way I refrained from voting delete with a capital D. Per WP:BADIDEA, this is "some new bad idea that had not previously been anticipated". Op47 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, Delete Op47 (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs)  18:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep all See no reason to delete. Calling it indiscriminate is a value judgement, a personal bias, not an objective fact. Calling it a Directory is also not supported, there is nothing there that defines it as a Directory. It's a List article, any list article could be accused of being a directory. It would help to have an introductory lead paragraph. -- Green  C  04:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What, me worry? Mad is a significant part of American pop culture.  Of course we should keep this.  Some day, I expect them to do, "Wikipedia Articles We'd Like to See".  If you're all bent out of shape over this, please go grab the nearest copy and get an attitude adjustment.  -- RoySmith (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not doubt that Mad is a significant part of American pop culture, and that is why we should have an article on Mad. I would like to grab a copy, especially of the issues in this article, but I cannot. This article is just making me aware of something I can't have and that is what is adjusting my attitude to delete this lot. Op47 (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify my position, I think that the material in these articles should be kept. I have no particular opinion on where it lives.  Keeping one article per decade is fine.  Merging them all into one big List of MAD issues is OK too, as is merging it all into Mad (magazine).  Looking forward to Deletionist Spy vs. Inclusionist Spy  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The analogy is with our many series of articles on TV show episodes. The cultural importance is at least as great as almost any of them. and that's the reason we give for keeping the episode articles, and it applies here also. Indeed, to make it similar, we'd have individual articles on each issue.  Op47's argument that "it just makes me aware of something I cannot have" is an unusual for of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT--on that argument, we should delete the articles about any number of wonderful historical things--or for that matter, on luxury goods.  DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Largely in agreement with DGG's analogy. Now, I am not particularly a fan of large piles of Wikipedia content that aren't backed by secondary sources but instead rely on Wikipedia's enumeration of primary sources, but usually that concern arises from concerns about simply eroding notability and, as a result, neutrality about what to include or not. In this case, however, I think it's both obvious that the topic is notable (a lousy argument, I admit) and that there's other evidence for that notability (in particular, Andrew Davidson's sources).  --j⚛e deckertalk 14:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge them all into List of MAD issues. There's no apparent reason for splitting them up by decade, it makes navigation and text-searching unnecessarily cumbersome, and the articles are all small enough that they can be combined into one without it being overlong.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it would be too long. There is server overhead in displaying tables and combining all into a single page (even with multiple tables) would be considerable horsepower. One could test it with a sandbox page and see how long Preview and Saves take. --  Green  C  16:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.