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. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, but there seems to be a firm consensus to keep the article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edwina (M*A*S*H)[edit]

Edwina (M*A*S*H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Like my previous noms, article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content. Continuing my reviewing of a few a night. ThuranX (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself."

WP:INTROTODELETE Essay "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved."

Was there any efforts to "look for sources yourself" is deletion a last resort? Considering there were no conversation about these 23 episode deletions beforehand? Ikip (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge properly, by which I mean retaining all content unless there is consensus to delete some of it. And adding the conclusion of the episode; what happens on the date, or however the episode finishes? We do not do teasers. Why are these being brought here? Is the merge being opposed? . DGG (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To avoid process wonkery by inclusionists such as yourself. Article tagged for the GNG prod two years ago. ThuranX (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to DGG, I have been joining in a series of these discussions and there was, for many similar episodes, a strong consensus that they were not notable. I see nothing different in this case--no reliable independent sources with significant coverage. I think if you want to argue to keep this you are going to need to argue for notability by finding such sources. Cazort (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "To avoid process wonkery by inclusionists such as yourself." First, I have found labels never help your argument, second, DGG wants all of these articles merged, hardly a hard core inclusionist. Ikip (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge as above; properly split-for-length. JJL (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per DGG. I also don't understand why these are brought here, and also, I don't understand what "process wonkery" is. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process wonkery is that if I just start redirecting, they will be reversed, and i will have to bring them here. I don't want to 'merge' and redirect, because these articles are redundant to the LoE already, and should be deleted. ThuranX (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's redundant to the Episode list, there's nothing to merge. ThuranX (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand plot summary and add more real world context and criticism, this one needs to be expanded not deleted. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode and a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. We also need to move the images to the seasonal outlines. And prophylacticly if your going to cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS please keep in mind the newer WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a legitimate comparison in your eyes, but there is a notable difference, as regards this set of AfDs. I'm not looking at Seinfeld, I'm looking at MASH. so I think that yours is effectively an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Perhaps I'll look at those later. ThuranX (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing your comment after someone has replied is rude. And seriously, do not create an essay then try to claim it trumps one that has both longevity and clearly demonstrable community consensus just because you wrote yours later. That is beyond ridiculous. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a real problem with editors who call other editor good faith contributions "crap". Does this really help come to a consensus? Just like cruft, "this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• An essay is an essay is an essay. It is not Wikipedia policy, and shouldn't be presented as if it were more than an essay. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only ever presented it as an essay, not as policy, saying Your argument matches that described in the essay. i did not simply link and run. ThuranX (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Process wonkery is when people follow appropriate policy or guidelines that gets in the way what other people want to do. Dlohcierekim 03:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a hardcore inclusionist, though I think DGG is, and Ikip? well never mind. However, Switch to keep It's a shame the nominator did not try to improve this article and others like it by fixing it instead of trying to delete it. To say it's been in need of improvement for 2 years as a reason to delete is just wrong. There is no time limit. And this mass listing of long standing article for deletion has in no way made it easy for the rescuers to meet the artificial time limit imposed by taking them to AFD. Kudos to the rescuers. And I think we need a little more process wonkery if AFD's like this are the alternative. Dlohcierekim 13:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but a short plot summary which is already covered in season list and this is an unlikely search term. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles, doesn't belong here. M*A*S*H wikia for transwiking? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep or merge my mistake, I thought this was about a character, not an episode. Ikip
• Strong keep These episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites, which I have added to the other 24 articles up for deletion, and I will add here shortly. Per WP:PRESERVE, this should have been discussed on the Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) instead of a mass deletion spree of 24 articles, causing unnecessary work and drama.
  In regards to guidelines about this, WP:FICT, a proposed guideline to address episodes failed for the third time. WP:PLOT is in an edit war, with editors removing the section, so much so the page has been protected for 2 weeks.
  A lot can be learned from the previous attempts to delete the South Park episodes, frustrated editors restarted Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park to make South Park episodes good and featured articles, and assure that all episodes exceed wikipedia guidelines. There is already a dormaint Wikipedia:WikiProject M*A*S*H which can be restarted. If South Park episodes have the potential to become featured articles, surely M*A*S*H episodes do. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), and Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
• Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the parent article. Discussions about a merge belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any episode that has millions of viewers, is clearly notable. Dream Focus 21:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't about numbers of viewers, it's about being documented, receiving significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are pieces of graffiti viewable from major interstates that have "millions of viewers"...but they don't become notable until someone decides to write about them in detail. Similarly for this episode or any TV episode. Plot summaries of non-notable episodes belong on fan wikis, not wikipedia. There is actually a "M*A*S*H" wiki: [1]. If you want to keep this article, show us that it is notable by showing us significant coverage in reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by consensus. No one has to show you anything. If most people believe an episode is notable, based on how many millions of viewers it has, than the article remains, as has happened in all the episode articles for other popular series people have tried to delete. The opinions of millions of people, who found it notable enough to watch, is far more important than the opinions of a couple of guys who work for a newspaper or magazine with fewer readers than the show has viewers, who decided for whatever reason to write about it that day. Dream Focus 00:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have searched thoroughly and find no sources giving any evidence of notability. The people above arguing to keep have not provided sources and have not addressed the underlying issue of notability. If people want to keep, they will need to find sources that demonstrate that this topic is notable. Cazort (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment notability of the individual episode is not the issue. The media franchise M*A*S*H is notable, and so the issues are its WP:LENGTH and the WP:SPLITTING of it. JJL (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not at all. This is about the Notability of This episode. There's no issue of splitting, as this episode is also covered on the LoE, without the needlessly large and thoroughly unsupported plot and trivia. This is about whether or not this article makes any assertions which justify the presence of this article on the project. It does not. ThuranX (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until someone with a lexisnexis account can actually check the notability of these. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. I also wish the nominator had done just one or two at a time instead of 15. We can see the same comments on almost every one of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. I've added some real-world sourcing to a few of these M*A*S*H episode articles, based on the Wittebols book; however, I've now reached the limit of the number of pages Google Books will let me see in that book, so I can't do any more now. Nevertheless, the point stands: the sources that others have found establish notability for these episodes, and source material exists to add the real-world material which these articles need. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe sources referred to above are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, but they do not source any notability. My initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. ThuranX (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability on Wikipedia is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It doesn't say "except episode guides". WP:PLOT is an argument for improving balance of content, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.ThuranX (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • A phone book has a one-line entry for each telephone number. An episode guide usually has at least a page on each episode, with details about cast, crew, plot, development and broadcast. That's exactly the sort of information that an encyclopedia covering a specific television episode would have. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are independent sources about the episode available for the article, so meets notability. Article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the list of articles in the entry with liberty to break back out when there is something explaining how this particular episode is individually notable. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Merge to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.