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 no consensus, plus a motion to declare today "No Consensus Day" since that apparently is the new black today. ;) One two three... 15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major Fred C. Dobbs[edit]

Major Fred C. Dobbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article is reduundant to episode list except for the Trivia section, which per AVTRIV should be removed anyways; if that's done, we've hit redundancy. part of my efforts to review a few MASH episodes per day. As with all others nominated, prodded for two years.ThuranX (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a notable character episode, no coverage in third party, reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree, I only found one mention anywhere: [1], that's not enough for an article, that would source a single sentence on the main page for the series. Cazort (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:26, 15 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) 04:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "quoting personal essay as policy". It's streamlining the process of responding to countless similiar arguments which don't hold water. If people are going to make the same redundant arguments, they shouldn't be too surprised at the terse responses they get. It's common sense: unless you're drawing an analogy to an article that you think clearly demonstrates the "case for keep" (which you're not, in this case), you're making a nonsensical statement. There are plenty of crappy articles on Wikipedia that shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Badger Drink (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:15, 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 08:39, 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) 09:23, 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) 13:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thuranx, maybe if you would have discussed this on the episode page first, and gained a consensus, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE, instead of launching mass AfDs. What did you expect the reaction to be? Editors don't take kindly to having their contributions deleted in mass, I think you should know this by now. Ikip (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Few of these editors actually contributed before this AfD, the creators of the pages were notified, and looking at the edit histories of these pages, without the AfD they would've been PLOT vios forever. I have explained, AD NAUSEUM, why I individually did this, and for the record, It's worked out better than a MASS deletion; Two episodse have already had ACTUAL Notability proved, and I've withdrawn those two nominations. However, the rest still fail. ThuranX (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThuranX, this is very important, Per: WP:INTROTODELETE:

"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." Ikip (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you haven't bothered to notice that on the talk pages of many of these articles, and at the central pages where peopel are now forum shopping about this issue, this was already brought up two years ago when the articles were tagged as problematic. ThuranX (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep WP:FICT, a policy to address episodes failed for the third time. WP:PLOT is being seriously attacked, so much so the page was protected. These episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites. 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. 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 and improve. The sources found establish notability by Wikipedia's definition. More real-world content is needed, of course, but that's an editorial issue, not a deletion rationale. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentNo, the sources found do NOTHIGN to establish any real world notability for this episode; as I have stated repeatedly, they support the notability of the series, that someone felt there was money to be made off a list of episodes. That's it. ThuranX (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how exactly does that not qualify as a reliable source independent of the subject? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It fails the part about significant, non-trivial coverage. ThuranX (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Wittebols book has several paragraphs on this episode. I don't have access to the Reiss book, but in my experience most episode guides devote at least a page to each episode. In my judgment, that's significant, non-trivial coverage. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not significant nor non-trivial because it treats all articles the same. It doesn't have a standard fro notability, because the goal is simply to list ALL episodes of the series. ThuranX (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All studio movies have reviews, and as far as I can tell all studio movies can be added to Wikipedia. What studio movies, let us say post 1950 are not notable? Not every movie wins and award, should we only include award winning movies? And once again, try not to use the essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should stop using essays too. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Close 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.} 06:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT CLOSE: These articles would be much better merged to a larger article about the TV series - especially the individual episodes. By all means let us have an article with "list of episodes in MASH" and "list of characters in MASH", but not an idividual article about each one of them. Jwg1994 (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC) — Jwg1994 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I don't think this makes my point any less valid than your interest in saving articles for the sake of having lots of articles. I think it's a valid point - you should see my other one on the other AFD. Or maybe you're too busy making articles like Man who went into a shop in an episode of a made-for-tv series and bought a croissant.Jwg1994 (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The identification of possible single-purpose accounts is standard procedure in AFD discussions. You're obviously familiar with Wikipedia deletion debates, yet you are not editing with an account with an editing history, so users can judge the usefulness of your past contributions. That's useful information for the closing admin. I won't respond to the sarcastic swipe at the end of your comment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Evidently notable. Articles are not redundant to lists as articles are our preferred format. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the list of episodes in the series until there's more to say about the episode than a plot summary and trivia, each of which are discouraged. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 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.