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 00:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

As with similar 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) 02:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge properly, And adding the conclusion of the episode; We do not do teasers. This episode violates guidelines on plot, because it does not give enough oft he plot to have any idea of what happens. The thing to do with this one is to complete it and merge. ( I am looking at each individual one; I cannot add what's necessary as I know only the film.) DGG (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already an episode list. This isn't hard to understand. Most of these repeat the LoE or they are just plot balloons. There's nothing to merge. ThuranX (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as above; properly split-for-length. JJL (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:53, 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) 03:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's redundant to the Episode list, there's nothing to merge. ThuranX (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It makes an unsupported claim to mild importance but is not notable. Drawn Some (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:16, 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) 04:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to the list. No reliable sources establish that this is an independently notable episode.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article makes a genuine assertion of notability. Look for sources to support it, but those are more likely offline due to the age of the episode. Rlendog (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no, the article makes no genuine assertion of notability. Certainly the writer of many of these episodes assures us that he finds it memorable, but there's nothing to support that, and 'memorable' is hardly a notability qualifier, as it is vague and unfocused praise, at best. ThuranX (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lack of sources to back the assertion of notability is a different issue. Nonetheless, there are independent sources available for the episode, which themselves demonstrate notability. Rlendog (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How so? there's no evidence of that in the article. ThuranX (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 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) 09:18, 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]

Yet again, I am forced to repeat that you have moved on into season two for deletions. My characterization is both accurate and verifiable and is neither "baseless" or an example of "alarmism". It is factual. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You, sir, are lying. Your comment specifically implies that well after this article's nomination, and recent relative to YOUR post, I had moved into the second season, when, in fact, it was nominated at the same time as a lot of others. You continue to lie about my actions, misrepresent my statements by redacting yours to make me look like I completely ignore everything you say, and then act as though you have done nothing wrong by such lies. You were cautioned against this sort of behavior, and yet you continue, therefore I can only conclude that you are intentionally acting in Bad Faith. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep These episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites, which I have added to the other 24 articles, and I will add here shortly. 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, per WP:PRESERVE, 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 does. 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
• Strong keep. This episode was nominated for a Writers Guild Award, which the nominator could have found quite easily if he'd been bothered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 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.} 06:31, 17 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.