Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mad issues
As much as I've always been a fan of the magazine, I'm going to have to go with Delete on this.  The main article is mostly OR - most of the statements are using the actual magazines themselves as the sources in order to support the article author's own analysis.  The little bits that are not, such as the excerpt from Harvey Kurtzman's obituary, are better suited in other articles, such as his own.  The individual lists are just pure  and .  Additionally, the information presented within them is completely unsourced.  As the nominator said, its not a usual thing for Wikipedia to catalogue the contents of every issue of a magazine, and for a publication that is as long running, and still continuing, like Mad, this is going to be nothing but an ever increasing pile of cruft.  Special:Contributions/64.183.45.226|64.183.45.226
— [[User talk:64.183.45.226|talk]]), 17:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:FANCRUFT||WP:LISTCRUFT (Wikipedia:Fancruft)