Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people and organisations frequently parodied by Private Eye (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 delete. Two "keep" arguments are entirely in regards to things other than this, and so are not relevant to whether or not this article should be retained. The remaining valid "keep" argument was even stated by its writer as "weak", so the consensus here is that this is not a reasonably maintainable subject given its inherent subjectivity. There were suggestions of an article on the topic, rather than a list, and this seemed to attract some substantial interest, so that may be something to consider. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
List of people and organisations frequently parodied by Private Eye
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of people and organisations frequently parodied by Private Eye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fancruft trivia list. There’s probably something notable here but “list of frequent targets of parody ain’t it. What’s next? List of frequent targets of parody by Mad magazine? By SNL? The Onion? Homestar Runner? Dronebogus (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Literature. North America1000 10:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep Saturday Night Live? Have you seen that? Stuff like whole categories of Saturday Night Live catchphrases. This is just another WP:NOTAMERICAN nomination, you seem to have done a bunch of those today. 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:21F5:E0FA:3F3C:F743 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per concurrent discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#XfD ban proposal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes in Private Eye. Deletion is almost certainly off the table for this specific AfD, given recent history here. —siroχo 08:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete – not sure why this has attracted less interest than the three related AfDs, but none of the sources in the article discuss these people and organisations as a group, nor is the group at all well-defined, nor is the article well-sourced. For Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye) and Recurring jokes in Private Eye it's been possible to look for sources, but for this one I'm not sure what I'd even search for. Nothing salvageable here as far as I can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arms & Hearts (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)]
- Delete. I have no opinion of this publication, and have not examined the other concurrent AfDs; but this one is suffering from a lack of participation, so I thought I'd investigate this one. There is extensive literature on the topic of parody in Private Eye; as such an article about Parody in Private Eye is probably viable. However, this list has impossible inclusion criteria. I don't see any sources making such a list; so then who determines "frequently"? Indeed who determines what figures were parodied at all? The obvious ones are obvious, but I have no doubt that there are innumerable parodies picked up on by the audience that no secondary source has ever commented on. Siroxo, I'm a little surprised at your !vote here; deletion is indeed off the table at some of the other AfDs, but there's no basis in policy to treat all related Private Eye AfDs the same, given that the articles have entirely different scopes. The IP vote above should be disregarded entirely, as it has nothing to say about the need and viability of the article under discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's more about the context surrounding the discussions. I agree that the inclusion criteria on this one are both too broad and too specific at the same time, and your suggestion of Parody in Private Eye is a very good one which I support. However, I generally am not comfortable moving forward with deletion on AFDs where I view the risk of violating pillar 3 or 4 in the nomination as higher than the risk of violating pillar 1 or 2.
- As an editor who had taken long breaks, I'm honestly really happy with the consensus that developed around AFDs over the past several years. Even if good faith, I don't think this nomination was made in the spirit of existing AFD consensus, and I think the discussions surrounding it have uncovered that. —siroχo 17:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Siroxo: I don't necessarily disagree that this group of AfDs, and quite a few nominations in general, are come too soon; in that they don't begin with the question of "what should we do with this content?" which is really a talk page discussion that needs to account for the broader topic, and instead jump to "is the article as framed notable?" However, I really don't like it when broader AfD conduct issues slip into specific discussions, because it makes those discussions nearly worthless (in my opinion) without at all resolving the broader issue, because this isn't a forum that can do that. The patterns visible in the endless sports bio AfDs are a perfect example, though these have gotten better since NSPORTS was changed. All of which is to say; I feel strongly each article at AfD should be treated on its merits, regardless of the approach taken by the nominator, and I don't think we're doing that here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I generally agree with what you're saying, but I think my take on it is a little different. In my personal view, AfD norms reflect the 5 pillarspretty well. I know the pillars are intentionally not rigid, but I'll try to summarize my thoughts here. The substance of discussions do tend to focus primarily on pillar 1 (generally N or NOT) with a big chunk of pillar 2 (V, NPOV are big ones) and occasional pillar 5/IAR. So, in my view, nominations do need a special focus on pillars 3 and 4 (BEFORE, ATD) -- and yes, the occasional IAR nomination is ok. We know that despite our best intentions, we often increase the heat when articles are rightly deleted, and respecting both pillars 3 and especially 4 is the path toward improving that situation. So, that's why I sit where I do on this current AfD.
- To your note regarding sports bios, honestly, I really appreciate the way the folks who regularly nominate articles that don't meet NSPORTS handle it. It's very respectful of pillars 3 and 4, allowing for the discussion to easily focus on pillars 1 and 2. I'd say they have a correctly high deletion rate due to that. —siroχo 17:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I generally agree with what you're saying, but I think my take on it is a little different. In my personal view, AfD norms reflect the
- @Siroxo: I don't necessarily disagree that this group of AfDs, and quite a few nominations in general, are come too soon; in that they don't begin with the question of "what should we do with this content?" which is really a talk page discussion that needs to account for the broader topic, and instead jump to "is the article as framed notable?" However, I really don't like it when broader AfD conduct issues slip into specific discussions, because it makes those discussions nearly worthless (in my opinion) without at all resolving the broader issue, because this isn't a forum that can do that. The patterns visible in the endless sports bio AfDs are a perfect example, though these have gotten better since NSPORTS was changed. All of which is to say; I feel strongly each article at AfD should be treated on its merits, regardless of the approach taken by the nominator, and I don't think we're doing that here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep and tag for cleanup. The lack of sourcing for many of the entries is concerning. Ideally it should be possible to find multiple independent reliable sources for any item that actually belongs on this list. I don't really see a clear conceptual distinction between this and Recurring jokes in Private Eye ("list of targets of recurring jokes" doesn't seem usefully distinct from "list of recurring jokes"), so I am inclined to think that the same arguments regarding NLIST would apply here. And in general, the topic of "Private Eye making fun of people in a frequently recurring and in-jokey sort of way" is sufficiently well-attested that I don't think that NLIST has a lot of teeth. By the same token, it seems to me that merging these two lists might lead to better coverage overall. But executing that merge would require considerable work and familiarity with the topic (which I lack), so for the time being I'd be inclined to tag it and move on. -- Visviva (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 2 September 2023 (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.