Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film spoofs in Mad


 * 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. I'm not sure I agree, but try as I may (that was facetiousness, don't worry), I can't find a consensus here to delete. Consider this either a "keep" or a "no consensus". –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

List of film spoofs in Mad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The fact that Mad is known for its movie and TV parodies is indisputable, as is the magazine's pop cultural impact from generation to generation. However, listing every single parody they've ever done is WP:IINFO to the extreme, especially with the artist/writer credits. The only sources are a fansite that lists every issue's content, and I could find no other sources discussing individual parodies in depth. This is just indiscriminate fancruft serving only a very narrow audience. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as overdetailed fancruft.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 19:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is obviously not indiscriminate as the scope is quite narrow. Complaining that it's fancruft is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  AS Mad magazine, has a long history and is well-documented in detail by works such as Completely Mad: A History of the Comic Book and Magazine, it seems reasonable to maintain such spinoffs which tie the magazine to the major movies over the years. Warden (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, eminently educational and encyclopedic. Helps inform readers on issues related to both satire and parody. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a highly WP:DISCRIMINATE list, even appears to be mostly complete. A lot of stuff on Wikipedia serves a narrow audience, long tail. There are many sources that mention Mad's spoofs of movies, they are cultural items of note. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. MAD spoofs things, surprise, surprise; this is well documented and not in question. There are probably a few very memoriable/notable spoofs that could be documented in the main MAD article, but to detail every spoof, specific to primary sources, is basically WP:TRIVIA and fails IINFO. (Eg: it is the equivalent of cultural references section which belong at a site like TV Tropes and not WP, unless they are noted by other source). --M ASEM  (t) 19:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The individual parodies do not seem to be notable. Is there enough sourced material to write an article: Mad film parody?  I'm sure that would be a notable topic.  The article could also have a link to the fansite mentioned as the source for this list so readers would still have the info. BayShrimp (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Bayshrimp.  MAD film parodies individually are not notable, and a collection of them is an indiscriminate collection of information; however, an encyclopedic article that explores their effect on pop culture and popular conception of satire would be much different.  Plus, it would live up to Cirt's "it's educational" argument.  As it stands, this is no more encyclopedic than a list of all the famous people named Bob. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as over-detailed, with individual entries having no reliable coverage. This is essentially a "list of articles from a magazine", and precedent shows we don't have that level of detail for any type of article in any magazine. Notable examples can be covered in other ways, the full list can be transwikied to wherever they write obsessively about Mad magazine. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Normally we wouldn't keep articles of this sort, but the importance of the magazine and in particular this set of features in 20th century popular culture is so great, that it's justified. It might be worth a hunt for references to see if some individual spoofs have been discussed sufficiently in third party sources to justify  articles on them.  DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're saying we should ignore the notability guideline just because you like the content. Right? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * nope. I don't particularly like the content. But so many people do that it's of major cultural importance.  DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - arguments in favor of deletion are correct. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:DISCRIMINATE and rather well-done, to boot. Quite impressive, actually. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:PRETTY is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my argument. But keep badgering! That never fails to impress and persuade. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Tell me how it's "well done" if the only source is an unreliable fansite. That's also violating WP:SYNTH, since said fansite does not give the names of the original works, just the spoof titles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment a la Spy vs. Spy. I'd lean keep, per DGG, that "the importance of the magazine and in particular this set of features in 20th century popular culture is so great, that it's justified."  On the other hand, per Hammer, it's terribly sourced.  However, if it were ka-blown-up, then it could only be re-created with great difficulty.  Can we incubate this one somewhere?  Or as a Mad editor would write, "Plop!" Bearian (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:LISTPURP 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. WP:LISTN 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 WP:LISTN. 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. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Asking for independent sourcing won't help when there is none. Do you expect the independent sources to just magically appear out of nowhere? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * TPH: The article had three independent sources. That left only about 360 more independent sources needed to fully sources the tables. I created columns in each table for the independent sources. I then added an independent source. so that leaves only 359 more independent sources needed to fully sources the tables. If you list this article at AfD again in three or so months and there's been little to no effort to independently source each entry, I would likely change my position to delete until such time that editors come forth to independently source the information in the list. Feel free to ping me then. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - per the rationales of User:DGG and User:Jreferee above. Also, and importantly, many reliable sources are available which can be used to verify content in the article. Some source examples include:, , , , , , , , , , , ,  . Many more are available. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Northamerica1000 - If you have time, please add the above sources to the columns I created in the tables. Preferably, put each reference in a Template:Citation. Independent sources can easily be found by searching "MAD magazine" with the name of the spoofed film (since the spoofed film name often is unique). -- Jreferee (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Google Books has numerous sources available that can be used to verify content in the article. I'll likely work on the article more if it's retained in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:04, 17 November 2013 (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.