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 15:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germ Warfare (M*A*S*H)[edit]

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

Like similar noms, article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content, except for rampant off-topic speculation about the possible philosophical ramifications of two different inferred meanings to a joke. It is redundant to the far more brief List of Episodes. The image isn't viable for keeping or merging as it lacks the real world content connection to pass Fair Use terms. Article has been GNG prodded for two years. ThuranX (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others Kudos to the rescuers. Dlohcierekim 14:36, 17 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 an 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) 04:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to the episode list, since no reliable sources address this episode in a fashion that would make it independently notable. That non-notable seinfeld articles are here is an argument to go nominate them for deletion, not an argument to keep an article that fails the GNG.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since all M*A*S*H episodes have the same reason to stay, and apparently all were nominated separately at the same time, I'll just copy and paste my response. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 08:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• He is already moving on to season two of MASH: please see 5 O’Clock Charlie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment. ThuranX (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have still moved on to start nominating season two. I stand behind this statement. You can argue the chronology, in that you started nominating in season 2 before you finished season 1, but the fact is correct. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. The episode guide sources added to other M*A*S*H articles can and should be added to this one, and once that is done notability will be established. 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) 22:49, 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) 23:19, 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) 01:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree that not every episode of the nightly news would be notable. I would agree that not every episode of a game show is notable. I would agree that not every episode of a late night talk show would be notable. Those can be summed up in a chart. What makes MASH notable, and other episodic television is that the media has taken note of them and written about the individual episodes, and provided context and commentary. There is more commentary of shows that come after Al Gore invented the Internet and people learned how to use The Google and navigate through the series of tubes to get the information. Google Books has ample paper references providing commentary and criticism, even if it is less than available for a South Park or Simpson episode. We need to avoid covering only recent events, where the information is easy to obtain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep M*A*S*H 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 of 24 articles.
  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 last attempt 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
• Closing nominator please note there have been improvements (removing unsourced sections to talk) and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing nominator please noteNone of those sources is used to support any form of assertion of notability. ThuranX (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• assertions of notability are a CSD concept and not relevant here as this is AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep per ENOUGH ALREADY! Mass nominations of multiple articles about an award-winning series does not realistically allow time for the improvements the nominator suggests are needed. Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE for improvement if the presumption of notability is reasonable and commonsense. Wikipedia does not expect nor demand every article be perfect, even through various interpretations of ever-changing guideline. Mass nominations act to be disruptive of the project in forcing a ticking clock where none is supposed to exist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidently notable per the sources provided.Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Struck duplicate. Didn't see I'd already opined. Keeping additional comment though). This AFD was overly hasty and misguided. This is not articles that need improvement. Dlohcierekim 14:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Duplicate Vote - please note this editor already voiced his opinion at the top of the AfD. (Should DLohcierekim return to clean this cuplication error up, he may also remove this comment.) ThuranX (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are independent sources about the episode available for the article, so meets notability (as the last episode to feature one particular character, for example). Article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the episode list, with liberty to break out when there's something other than a plot summary to put in. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect Enough sources for only a plot summary does not establish notability in my mind. Cazort (talk) 15:54, 21 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.