671:
for improvement if the presumption of notability is reasonable and commonsense. Knowledge 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
258:
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
297:
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
387:
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
749:
is standard procedure in AFD discussions. You're obviously familiar with
Knowledge 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.
696:: 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.
621:
All studio movies have reviews, and as far as I can tell all studio movies can be added to
Knowledge. 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
350:
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.
423:
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.
129:
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
725:
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
455:
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
259:
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
Knowledge that shouldn't be on Knowledge.
523:
No, 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.
409:"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."
572:
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.
227:
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:
185:
298:
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.
593:
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.
373:, 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.
667:
Mass nominations of multiple articles about an award-winning series does not realistically allow time for the improvements the nominator suggests are needed. Knowledge has no
500:. The sources found establish notability by Knowledge's definition. More real-world content is needed, of course, but that's an editorial issue, not a deletion rationale. —
727:
232:. 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
122:
388:
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.
631:
479:
457:
339:
245:
89:
84:
798:
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.
93:
76:
627:
335:
241:
203:
764:
583:
548:
510:
719:
237:
17:
715:
487:
807:
790:
769:
739:
686:
649:
635:
602:
588:
567:
553:
533:
515:
469:
433:
418:
397:
382:
360:
343:
321:
289:
268:
249:
219:
196:
176:
157:
139:
58:
822:
681:
623:
233:
55:
36:
821:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
786:
483:
80:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
803:
645:
403:
214:
264:
187:, that's not enough for an article, that would source a single sentence on the main page for the series.
331:
760:
579:
544:
506:
285:
365:
thuranx, maybe if you would have discussed this on the episode page first, and gained a consensus, per
209:
674:
153:
48:, plus a motion to declare today "No Consensus Day" since that apparently is the new black today. ;)
782:
170:
72:
64:
731:
707:
697:
668:
366:
781:
Evidently notable. Articles are not redundant to lists as articles are our preferred format.
735:
711:
701:
598:
563:
529:
429:
393:
356:
260:
135:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
755:
574:
539:
501:
370:
299:
281:
229:
192:
149:
538:
And how exactly does that not qualify as a reliable source independent of the subject? —
465:
414:
378:
746:
728:
Man who went into a shop in an episode of a made-for-tv series and bought a croissant
52:
594:
559:
525:
425:
389:
352:
131:
110:
799:
641:
188:
491:
461:
410:
374:
49:
752:
I won't respond to the sarcastic swipe at the end of your comment.
815:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
558:
It fails the part about significant, non-trivial coverage.
330:
He is already moving on to season two of MASH: please see
490:
page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion.
169:
episode, no coverage in third party, reliable sources.
117:
106:
102:
98:
460:instead of a mass deletion spree of 24 articles.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
825:). No further edits should be made to this page.
148:. No assertion of importance or significance.
8:
184:I agree, I only found one mention anywhere:
640:Perhaps you should stop using essays too.
478:: This debate has been included on the ,
474:
480:Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1)
458:Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1)
402:ThuranX, this is very important, Per:
7:
204:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1)
238:WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY
24:
745:The identification of possible
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
628:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
336:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
242:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
236:please keep in mind the newer
202:Keep or Merge and redirect to
1:
488:Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes
225:Keep and expand plot summary
704:) 15:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
842:
818:Please do not modify it.
808:12:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
791:07:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
770:15:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
740:15:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
687:06:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
650:12:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
636:05:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
603:04:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
589:04:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
568:04:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
554:03:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
534:03:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
516:03:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
484:Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series)
470:00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
434:03:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
419:00:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
398:23:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
383:22:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
361:13:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
344:09:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
322:08:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
290:08:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
269:19:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
250:04:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
220:03:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
197:21:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
177:20:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
158:20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
140:20:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
59:15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
747:single-purpose accounts
280:: Episode is notable.
720:few or no other edits
722:outside this topic.
672:supposed to exist.
73:Major Fred C. Dobbs
65:Major Fred C. Dobbs
624:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
234:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
175:and his otters •
44:The result was
768:
753:
742:
723:
587:
552:
514:
494:
332:5 O’Clock Charlie
833:
820:
758:
751:
724:
705:
677:
661:Procedural Close
577:
542:
504:
498:Keep and improve
404:WP:INTROTODELETE
318:
315:
312:
309:
306:
303:
230:The Postponement
217:
212:
173:
172:Ten Pound Hammer
120:
114:
96:
34:
841:
840:
836:
835:
834:
832:
831:
830:
829:
823:deletion review
816:
675:
665:ENOUGH ALREADY!
316:
313:
310:
307:
304:
301:
215:
210:
171:
116:
87:
71:
68:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
839:
837:
828:
827:
811:
810:
793:
783:Colonel Warden
775:
774:
773:
772:
690:
689:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
495:
472:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
347:
346:
325:
324:
292:
274:
273:
272:
271:
253:
252:
222:
199:
179:
165:Not a notable
160:
127:
126:
67:
62:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
838:
826:
824:
819:
813:
812:
809:
805:
801:
797:
794:
792:
788:
784:
780:
777:
776:
771:
766:
762:
757:
748:
744:
743:
741:
737:
733:
729:
721:
717:
713:
709:
703:
699:
695:
692:
691:
688:
685:
684:
683:
679:
678:
670:
666:
662:
659:
658:
651:
647:
643:
639:
638:
637:
633:
629:
625:
620:
619:
618:
617:
604:
600:
596:
592:
591:
590:
585:
581:
576:
571:
570:
569:
565:
561:
557:
556:
555:
550:
546:
541:
537:
536:
535:
531:
527:
522:
519:
518:
517:
512:
508:
503:
499:
496:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
471:
467:
463:
459:
454:
451:
450:
435:
431:
427:
422:
421:
420:
416:
412:
408:
407:
405:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
386:
385:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:
362:
358:
354:
349:
348:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:
327:
326:
323:
320:
319:
296:
293:
291:
287:
283:
279:
276:
275:
270:
266:
262:
257:
256:
255:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
226:
223:
221:
218:
213:
207:
205:
200:
198:
194:
190:
186:
183:
180:
178:
174:
168:
164:
161:
159:
155:
151:
147:
144:
143:
142:
141:
137:
133:
124:
119:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
817:
814:
795:
778:
694:DO NOT CLOSE
693:
682:
680:
673:
664:
660:
520:
497:
475:
452:
300:
294:
277:
261:Badger Drink
224:
201:
181:
166:
162:
145:
128:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
756:Josiah Rowe
718:) has made
669:WP:DEADLINE
575:Josiah Rowe
540:Josiah Rowe
502:Josiah Rowe
453:Strong keep
367:WP:PRESERVE
282:Niteshift36
150:Drawn Some
492:User:Ikip
371:WP:BEFORE
216:cierekim
167:character
796:Redirect
765:contribs
716:contribs
676:Schmidt,
584:contribs
549:contribs
511:contribs
208:Cheers,
123:View log
56:three...
732:Jwg1994
708:Jwg1994
698:Jwg1994
595:ThuranX
560:ThuranX
526:ThuranX
521:Comment
426:ThuranX
390:ThuranX
353:ThuranX
132:ThuranX
90:protect
85:history
800:Stifle
642:Stifle
486:, and
189:Cazort
182:Delete
163:Delete
146:Delete
130:years.
118:delete
94:delete
317:Focus
121:) – (
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
804:talk
787:talk
779:Keep
761:talk
736:talk
712:talk
702:talk
663:per
646:talk
632:talk
626:. --
599:talk
580:talk
564:talk
545:talk
530:talk
507:talk
476:Note
466:talk
462:Ikip
430:talk
415:talk
411:Ikip
394:talk
379:talk
375:Ikip
369:and
357:talk
340:talk
334:. --
295:Keep
286:talk
278:Keep
265:talk
246:talk
240:. --
211:Dloh
193:talk
154:talk
136:talk
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
53:two
50:One
806:)
789:)
763:•
738:)
714:•
706:—
648:)
634:)
601:)
582:•
566:)
547:•
532:)
509:•
482:,
468:)
432:)
417:)
406::
396:)
381:)
359:)
342:)
288:)
267:)
248:)
195:)
156:)
138:)
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
802:(
785:(
767:)
759:(
754:—
734:(
730:.
710:(
700:(
644:(
630:(
597:(
586:)
578:(
573:—
562:(
551:)
543:(
528:(
513:)
505:(
464:(
428:(
413:(
392:(
377:(
355:(
338:(
314:m
311:a
308:e
305:r
302:D
284:(
263:(
244:(
206:.
191:(
152:(
134:(
125:)
115:(
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.