Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film spoofs in Mad (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

List of film spoofs in Mad
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Full of original research, since the parodies themselves rarely state directly what they are a parody of; thus, one can't verifiably say that say, "Silly" is a parody of "Sully" just because the titles are similar. The only source that could verify as such is Doug's Mad Cover Site, which is cited excessively in the article; however, it is a personally run fansite and thus not a reliable source.

The inclusion of artist and writer credits, genre, and running totals of how many artists/writers worked on what, also run afoul of being indiscriminate information of use only to fans. These are also original research, as many issues either didn't contain bylines or removed them by mistake, so the artists/writers are either known to the fanbase entirely through their style, through personal connections, or through posts on Facebook or old forums.

Finally, some of the artist/writer credits are known by the fanbase to be pseudonymous, but few have been verified reliably, thus bringing the list's accuracy into even further question. Therefore, there is no way that this list could ever be complete and accurately sourced. Also, the overwhelming consensus to delete in Articles for deletion/List of Mad issues shows that there is no need for such lists. Nor is there even a precedent for such a list.

Previous AFD kept entirely due to invalid rationales such as WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL, and WP:PRETTY. No valid arguments were given to keep last go-round. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete- excellent, accurate nomination. This list is inherently original research with no prospect of being sourced reliably. Reyk  YO!  06:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTN as a topic that is notable as a whole, which is the consensus of the previous discussion. WP:CSC recognizes short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group as valid list articles. Diego (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How are they "Verifiably a member" if there is no secondary sourcing to verify what they are parodies of? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Who says there is no sourcing? That they currently are not included in the article is not a reason for deleting a topic. Note that per WP:Verifiability policy there is no need that each individual entry is referenced to a secondary source (although there are those too, see ,), only that the topic as a whole is. Diego (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This still does not consistently address all the parodies. Most of them can not be independently confirmed as being parodies of a given work without delving into WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to talk about particular entries that should be removed for lack of references, the proper place to do it is the articles talk page. The purpose of AfD is not article cleanup, but deciding on the notability of the topic based on the availability of sources covering its subject as a whole.Diego (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is not cleanup, but verifiability. There is no way to verify that all of these are actually parodies of what the list says they are; thus it is WP:OR on its face. It is also WP:IINFO. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The entries described in the links I provided above are verified parodies, so your argument doesn't apply to all of these entries; therefore it isn't a valid reason to delete topic as a whole. If your position is that some entries are not verified, that is a cleanup issue. Diego (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Articles for deletion/List of Mad issues closed as delete. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Diego (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep. I have just found useful information there needed to flesh out a reference in another WP article. Parody is an acknowledged genre, and that word rather than the unencyclopedic 'spoof' should appear as the article's title if the decision is to keep it. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Also, how can we prove that all of these are parodies of the stated works without delving into WP:OR? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A little humility from TenPoundHammer would be welcome. Deletion of the article would only be justifiable if there were no sources, other than the Doug Gilford site, that tied the films to their parodies. But there are already a few secondary sources given in the article, as has already been pointed out, and here are two more such sources: "Mad Magazine veterans will discuss movie parodies at Omaha event", by Micah Mertes / World-Herald staff writer, Aug 10, 2016; Grady Hendrix's film comment published by the Film Society of Lincoln Center, in the March/April 2013 issue. Deletion when there are valid sources like these would be an act of self-righteous vandalism. The most that would be justifiable is posting an appropriate tab. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That does not verify all of them though. Nor does it verify the artists and writers involved -- again, many were not given byline credits in the issue, and many are known through the fandom to be pseudonymous. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep asking the same question, even though it has been pointed to you that we don't need to prove that all of these parodies are verifiable in order for the article to be kept, only that the topic itself has been covered by RSs, which has already been done. Diego (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that an article on the concept of parodies is a bad idea. There are sources to verify the overall concept of "film/TV parody in MAD" and give select verifiable examples. But you're still not answering this: why list all of them if we can only prove some of them without breaching WP:OR? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I notice from his first deletion attempt in 2013 that it is TenPoundHammer's style to come back at anyone who raises a valid point, as if his shouting will drown out their voice. Let me remind him that what we are discussing is an article with the title "List of film spoofs in Mad"; artist and writer credits may be of interest but are not essential. Title of the film parodied and date of issue are what are important in terms of the article's subject. More verification of these from secondary sources is at issue, and that such sources exist (and were provided) was pointed out in the 2013 discussion, the conclusion from which TenPoundHammer is refusing to abide by.

What seems most at issue is what film is being parodied, since some are now fairly obscure. MAD magazine itself has now begun to identify the most high profile and in this case use of a primary source is legitimate. Some titles are so obviously transparent, as in the case of "Dr Zhicago" (Dr Zhivago) and "The Odd Father" (The Godfather), that it is arguable that to identify one with the other is not WP:OR but a case of translation, which the guidelines allow. To sum up, since there are multiple sources identifying which film is being parodied, and since authorship and artwork are not the point at issue here, there can be no case for deletion of the article. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But are there sources to identify the parodied film 100% of the time? Is there a secondary source proving that say, "Silly" is a parody of "Sully"? I sure as hell can't find one. There's no point in listing them if you can't prove all of them. Also, isn't "it sounds like the original title" blatantly WP:OR? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - The question of "Is "Silly" a parody of "Sully"?" is less than ideal for this discussion -- because there are certainly sources that prove it. Tom Richmond's describes the Sully parody illustration in his blog -- as he does for all his artwork.. And Mad Magazine often described each parody in issue descriptions in its advertisements. For recent parodies like "Silly," WP:OR is not a factor. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think the article has good sources, then fucking add them. They won't add themselves, you know. Funny how everyone seems to think that "see, see, sources totally exist, I found a bunch of them" is all you need to do, and the article will magically absorb those sources overnight and become an FA. WP:BURDEN and all that. If you can be bothered to dig the sources up in the first place, then FUCKING ADD THEM. Otherwise you're just being lazy. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So... you state that you can't find a source. And when it's demonstrated that it's verifiable by providing a link to one (the definition of WP:BURDEN), then you lose your shit. I don't usually acquiesce to tantrums but I've gone ahead and added the cite per your "request." Now I've got to get back to a busy afternoon of being lazy. — Cactus Writer (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Per Diego's comments. And my demonstration above that the list overcomes WP:OR because cites do exist. — Cactus Writer (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: WP:LISTN: Have the parodies been covered as a group in multiple reliable sources?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 09:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * For me the clinching source is the Cahiers du Cine-MAD article published by the Film Society of Lincoln Center. This covers the whole series of parodies up to 2013, identifying many of the films parodied and typical strategies in doing so. It is moreover cited in the lead, although more might have been made of it. The demand that each and every item in the list should be referenced is not in accord with WP guidelines in WP:LISTN, the most relevant passage in which I quote here. "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."


 * In the light of the above, the recent disruptive tagging of the article under discussion by User:TenPoundHammer is revealed as vandalism, as is his refusal to accept the 2011 decision not to delete. Administrators will take note, I am sure. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "his refusal to accept the 2011 decision not to delete" I think waiting six years to re-nominate is a fine demonstration of acceptance. Remember that acceptance does not mean you change your mind, and consensus can change. It's not like the original discussion was unanimous - the closer even commented that it was effectively "no consensus." Argento Surfer (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, the last discussion was closed in November 2013, so three years and a quarter. That ended with the assurance that sources existed and therefore the contention that the article should be deleted because there weren't was wrong-headed. If the proposer really cared, he could have located and added them himself. He didn't, claimed there were none and was caught out by one of the commenting editors above. Moreover, since he now seems to have withdrawn from this dialogue, perhaps that is an indication that, as you say, a change of mind can occur. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:LISTN as ably demonstrated by Mzilikazi1939. Kudos. Andrew D. (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2017 (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.