1108:
that the episode is notable, there must be something specifically notable about that particular episode. Episode 57 is not notable because episode 3 was notable, and that's as it should be. An episode must have something specific to it which asserts notability, otherwise, every single episode of every show ever broadcast anywhere is notable. Each episode article needs to show what makes that episode special, notable. Most of these do not. I've been quite reasonable about this, withdrawing two articles already once some actual notability was established. I fail to see how you remain completely obtuse about my point here.
1150:
episode guide. It is not hard to understand this: An
Episode Guide shows that the SERIES is notable, not all the episodes, because it makes no distinctions between articles. Episode Guides present a PLOT, and maybe a list of guest stars, and sometimes trivia. Apparently all 6 of those sources only revealed THREE bits of potentially notable material. One failed award nomination and two actual winnings of awards. And as I must repeat all over AfD, I already withdrew those two wins. I am asking for individual demonstrations of notability. I got two. Get me a few more, and most of these articles could stay.
1212:
discussed awards when I read it. All those later found to have awards and citation supporting were withdrawn. There's no favoritism, my standard was simple - if an article made no supported claim to individual non-inherited notability, or lacked real world content that could reasonably be tagged with citation requests, I nom'd it. My actions were not disruptive; after all, it's not like I went around refactoring and redacting comments to make other editors look foolish or ignorant.
1058:
they may present facts which demonstrate notability for SOME episodes, like the one that got a writing award, and the other which got an editing award. But simply printing out a list of episodes isn't the same as asserting each episode is notable unto itself, which is what is required. You keep making assertions which seem to boil down to 'notability for the series is inherited by each episode.' That's NOT how NOTE works.
1316:
to be woven into a web of knowledge. Dozens of articles with plot summaries and nothing else, even when adequately sourced, are in my opinion, entirely unencyclopedic, redundant to the rest of the web, and uninteresting. I would rather see M*A*S*H articles discussing the relevance of the series to the real world, tying it in with other articles beyond just the M*A*S*H ones.
1127:
talking about the printed books by
Wittebols and Reiss. Not every television series has had episode guides published about it. For those series, it is not reasonable to expect that every episode should have its own article. However, if an independent source has published a guide to the episodes of a series, that guide is evidence of notability for those episodes.
773:. The editors arguing to keep have provided no new sources and are not addressing the key issue of notability. Unlike some of the other episodes, this one does have a few sources but I don't see how they establish notability. For example, the referenced book "Watching M*A*S*H, Watching America", which is a source dedicated in detail to
1211:
What are you talking about? I started where I saw the problem, then worked forward to season two, accidentally got one of those, but saw it suffered the same problems, so I didn't withdraw it; then I started working back to the front of season one again. that's all there is to it. No article in there
1315:
relating to M*A*S*H in that journal. I'm not a "deletionist", if you check my record you'll see that I tend to fall pretty solidly on the "keep" end of things most of the time. The issue here is that I think wikipedia is more than an indiscriminate repository of information. I think articles need
1295:
While most of the given sources only give a single paragraph, it's not the length but the nature of the content that matters to me. The given sources simply reference a plot summary. There is no discussion of cultural context of the episode, there is no content that relates the episode to anything
1300:
article? I.e. something that is more than just a plot summary, that ties the article into a web of knowledge? That's what I'm failing to see and why I continue to argue for deletion of most of these episodes. I think there are relatively few notable episodes of many TV shows. An example of what
1057:
No, someone says 'this show is popular, let's see if an episode guide would sell.' and they write up a list of episodes, with some basic facts about each. They aren't making assertions about the notability of individual episodes, but about a percieved popularity of the show itself. Within that book
1036:
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.
1369:
A plot summary may not provide a lot of meat for analysis in an article (other than the article's plot summary), but it is signficant coverage in its own right and that multiple independent sources choose to take the trouble to provide a plot summary of a particular episode is an indication of the
1107:
No, it is exactly what you are saying, over and over: "Because there is an episode guide, all episodes are notable." That's ridiculous. Because there is an episode guide, there can be made an argument, a good one that I'd support ,,that the show is probably notable. However, in order to establish
1076:
is notable. It's possible for a television series to be notable without its episodes having received critical attention. However, an episode guide is a perfectly acceptable example of a reliable source, independent of the subject, and as such the episodes of any television series about which an
926:
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
1126:
it. That's what an episode guide does— it notes episodes. I'm not talking about the TV Guide link, which I agree is not helpful in establishing notability. (I'm unsure about the classicsitcoms.com and digitallyobsessed.com links — I don't know whether those are reliable sources or not.) I'm
247:
I think the argument to keep because "other similar pages exist" is not valid, especially since we have been deleting episodes, some of which are closer to being notable than this one, and there has been a clear consensus that they are not notable. If the episode is not notable, it needs to be
1196:
Why did you nominate the ones that are exceptional by your own standards? That is why I wrote that you have a bias against either this show, or older TV shows. You said that award nominated and award winning episodes are notable by your standards, yet you nominated them also. Every episode was
1149:
Notable DOES mean exceptional or special. It means WORTHY of making note of it. Not every episode is worthy of making a note of it. When you decide to list all episodes, you are not making any examination of their notability, you're making a holistic list. That's different. Knowledge is NOT an
562:
I am troubled 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."
515:. And if there are similar pages on non-notable episodes of other TV shows, they need to be deleted too...we need to discuss based on notability, not on what other pages do or don't exist because wikipedia is full of pages that exist that shouldn't and pages that don't exist that should.
262:
Okay, lets talk about policy, WP:FICT, a proposed guideline addressing episodes, has failed 3 times. WP:PLOT just had a !vote in which a majority of people wanted it to be deleted. So there is little policy reasons to delete this article, especially considering the new references provided.
310:
the list is not all blue. Examine all the episode lists by season, and you'll see plenty of gaps. Since, as stated above, I'm reviewing a few at a time, eventually there will be plenty more episodes removed than kept, we can turn the lists to black, and thus clean up the entire situation.
547:
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.
488:
and add more real world context and criticism, it is no more detailed than any movie plot or contemporary TV program. 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:
1077:
episode guide has been published are themselves notable. This isn't inheritance; it's focus. Claiming that episode guides can't establish notability for episodes is like claiming that bird guides can't establish notability for a species of bird.
745:
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.
950:
The 'improvements' above are simply the use of multiple
Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, in an attempt to put sources on the page. However, my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands.
1244:
before? I can show you how to use it if you need help. You do understand that there are tags to resolve the problems you found, right? What made you choose MASH from the hundreds of TV show series articles that have identical structure?
1451:"avoid redlinks" to the good ol' "notability is inherited" fallacy. If someone needs plot summaries for TV episodes, there's plenty of other Wikis out there that are better-suited for this sort of excruciating in-universe minutae.
973:
What is your definition of notability? It seems like you have a
Guinness World Records concept of notability. It has to be be the longest running episode, or the most watched episode, instead of the Knowledge definition.
1308:
mention of the final episode (which is more likely to be notable anyway), I certainly wouldn't argue to delete that one, but there are mentions of other episodes (and, MUCH more interesting to me, themes and issues):
281:, significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject--which excludes the episode itself as well as any promotional material tied to the industry (i.e. a site run by comcast).
168:. Still, my search turned up nothing showing notability. I suppose I could still be proven wrong if someone comes up with sources, but I think there's a very slim chance of this happening.
1433:
shows. If we used the exceptional litmus test we would have just the TV Guide 100 top episodes. Reference works go beyond top 100 lists, and
Knowledge has its own standard for notability. --
329:
Oh hell, if there are already gaps, knock yourself out. My only concern was that deletes be done with the series as a whole in mind, not strictly on a case-by-case basis for each episode.
905:. 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.
511:
On what grounds are you arguing to expand this article? You say to "add real world context and criticism"--from where? You need to provide sources. Otherwise it would be
1335:
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.
643:
581:
mallet? Honestly now, think about what ThuranX is actually saying, rather than just acting reactionary in the face of certain combinations of little black squiggles.
122:
998:
Notability on
Knowledge is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It doesn't say "except episode guides".
277:
I'm aware that thees guidelines have not reached a consensus. Because there is great controversy I thinking primarily of the general notability guideline:
1447:
Then the standard is too low. And this episode does nothing to meet
Knowledge's already-low standard. The arguments I've seen for inclusion range from the
367:
into season articles, with full content, piossibly a little expanded, not the unencyclopedic teasers that make up the presently disgraceful season lists.
1286:
on sources. classicsitcoms.com is self-published (by Vince Waldron), and is not acceptable as a source. The other sources are better. But I don't see
604:
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
1122:
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. You are treating "notable" as if it means "exceptional" or "special". All that it means is that someone has
1197:
nominated in season one, and you started season two. There doesn't appear to be any standard applied at all, it gives the appearance of disruption. --
1438:
1268:
1250:
1202:
979:
682:
498:
616:, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles, doesn't belong here. M*A*S*H wikia for transwiking? --
207:
I'd say an episode can be notable, such as the Live ER episode, or a series finale, or one with a controversial theme that draws news coverage.
893:
89:
84:
129:
As with Ceasefire, Article is completely redundant to the already existing Episode list. As with all others nominated, prodded for two years.
1022:
Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.
93:
1087:. All that is required is that an episode has been covered in reliable sources independent of the subject. And episode guides qualify. —
1496:
1434:
1264:
1246:
1198:
975:
708:
494:
418:
387:
76:
1398:
1129:
Neither of us is getting anywhere in this discussion. Let's just agree to disagree, and see what the community as a whole says. OK? —
659:
629:
1448:
884:
and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. -
1139:
1097:
1047:
1012:
937:
185:: Personally I don't think any series merits pages for individual episodes, but there are many such series documented on Knowledge.
17:
678:
1306:
765:
I have been doing a fairly detailed search for each of these episodes. I find no evidence of the sort of coverage in
1499:. The article does not currently meet the GNG (requires significant coverage, beyond just a reworking of the plot).
1392:
1302:
889:
831:
Millions of viewers make it notable. Just as a movie is notable if it had a lot of people see it at the theater.
1523:
810:
I am reminded of the nominator for deletion who recently felt 36 references was not enough to keep an article.
755:
55:
36:
1508:
1485:
1460:
1442:
1418:
1379:
1364:
1344:
1325:
1272:
1254:
1221:
1206:
1159:
1144:
1117:
1102:
1067:
1052:
1031:
1017:
983:
960:
942:
914:
897:
874:
854:
819:
786:
760:
737:
720:
663:
633:
590:
572:
557:
538:
524:
502:
478:
458:
434:
409:
395:
378:
359:
338:
320:
290:
272:
257:
230:
216:
202:
177:
156:
138:
58:
1522:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1481:
674:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
248:
deleted. If you want to keep it because you believe it is notable, you need to show us that it is notable.
1395:
653:
623:
453:
429:
391:
80:
1456:
1414:
1072:
And that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that these episode articles should be kept merely because
865:. Significant coverage in reliable independent sources makes something notable, not numbers of viewers.
586:
193:, unless someone can make an argument for introducing a red link into an otherwise blue list of episodes.
189:, there are pages for (seemingly) every MASH episode. So it seems to me that the default action would be
1135:
1093:
1043:
1008:
933:
910:
885:
647:
617:
448:
424:
728:
there have been signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion.
1406:
748:
152:
1477:
1402:
355:
1504:
704:
696:
334:
198:
72:
64:
1313:
1310:
221:
Nor have I denied that; however, because SOME are notable does not mean that ALL are notable.
1476:
Evidently notable. Articles are not redundant to lists as articles are our preferred format.
1452:
1410:
1375:
1340:
1217:
1155:
1113:
1063:
1027:
956:
801:
I added 5 references to this article on 17:26, 15 May 2009, four hours before you posted this.
582:
553:
474:
405:
316:
226:
134:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1296:
beyond the show. I think the key issue here should be: are there enough sources to write an
1360:
1321:
1130:
1088:
1083:
episodes deserve articles; however, you are in error when you assert that exceptionality is
1038:
1003:
928:
906:
870:
832:
782:
700:
613:
520:
490:
286:
253:
173:
529:
I have provided numerous sources. These sources are just not good enough for some editors.
578:
577:
So, sensing the loss of the rationale battle, you're resorting to bashing people with the
148:
999:
815:
733:
716:
568:
534:
351:
268:
212:
1500:
1355:? I pointed out above that the sources give little more than a brief plot summary.
609:
374:
330:
194:
52:
1371:
1336:
1213:
1151:
1109:
1059:
1023:
952:
766:
549:
512:
470:
401:
312:
222:
130:
110:
164:
This one is tricky, as searching for sources yields lots of hits for the network
1356:
1317:
866:
862:
778:
770:
605:
516:
282:
278:
249:
169:
1241:
811:
729:
712:
686:
564:
530:
264:
208:
927:
material exists to add the real-world material which these articles need. —
795:
RE:"I have been doing a fairly detailed search for each of these episodes"
369:
165:
49:
774:
493:. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. --
1079:"Notable" is a broader criterion than "exceptional". We agree that
1516:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1002:
is an argument for improving balance of content, not deletion. —
804:
RE:"The editors arguing to keep have provided no new sources "
400:
It's redundant to the Episode list, there's nothing to merge.
922:. I've added some real-world sourcing to a few of these
777:, has a scant two sentences referring to this episode.
685:
page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion.
799:
117:
106:
102:
98:
1305:, relating this to other issues, as in this article's
423:
Merger preserves the edit history for GFDL. Cheers,
469:What is there to preserve? Delete it and be done.
1236:Do you understand the concept of "due diligence"
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1526:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1301:I'm looking for is mentions in places like the
644:list of Television-related deletion discussions
147:as no assertion of importance or significance.
807:Please strike this, as it is therefore false.
8:
1263:to make you look "foolish or ignorant". --
673:: This debate has been included on the ,
669:
638:
1259:And you are correct there is no need for
1429:As discussed earlier, your links are to
683:Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1)
642:: This debate has been included in the
707:merging should have been discussed on
769:that would be necessary to establish
7:
1497:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1)
709:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1)
419:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1)
24:
798:What about my new contributions?
486:Keep and expand the plot summary
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1435:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1265:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1247:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1199:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
976:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
495:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1:
1351:Do you think the coverage is
726:Closing nominator please note
679:Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes
1240:you nominate? Have you used
1409:. This is not one of them.
1543:
1303:Journal of Popular Culture
695:per Richard. There is no
1519:Please do not modify it.
1509:15:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
1486:07:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
1461:05:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
1443:18:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
1419:18:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
1380:17:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
1365:04:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
1345:02:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
1326:14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1273:05:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1255:05:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1222:05:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1207:04:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1160:04:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1145:04:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1118:04:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1103:03:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1068:01:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1053:01:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1032:23:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
1018:22:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
984:00:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
961:13:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
943:05:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
915:04:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
898:04:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
875:21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
855:21:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
820:01:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
787:21:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
761:20:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
738:17:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
721:15:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
675:Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series)
664:04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
634:04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
591:18:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
573:15:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
558:04:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
539:01:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
525:21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
503:04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
479:03:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
459:14:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
435:03:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
410:04:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
396:03:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
379:09:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
360:06:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
339:05:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
321:23:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
291:13:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
273:01:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
258:21:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
231:23:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
217:23:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
203:23:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
178:21:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
157:21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
139:21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
59:15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1370:episode's notability.
417:Merge and redirect to
386:to the episode list.
1288:significant coverage
384:Merge and redirect
73:Showtime (M*A*S*H)
65:Showtime (M*A*S*H)
44:The result was
1143:
1101:
1051:
1016:
941:
689:
666:
513:original research
1534:
1521:
1133:
1091:
1041:
1006:
931:
920:Keep and improve
886:Peregrine Fisher
851:
848:
845:
842:
839:
836:
767:reliable sources
751:
650:
620:
491:The Postponement
456:
451:
432:
427:
365:combine properly
120:
114:
96:
34:
1542:
1541:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1524:deletion review
1517:
849:
846:
843:
840:
837:
834:
749:
711:before an AFD.
648:
618:
454:
449:
430:
425:
116:
87:
71:
68:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1540:
1538:
1529:
1528:
1512:
1511:
1489:
1488:
1478:Colonel Warden
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1422:
1421:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1348:
1347:
1329:
1328:
1292:
1291:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1257:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1128:
1078:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
966:
965:
964:
963:
917:
900:
878:
877:
858:
857:
825:
824:
823:
822:
808:
805:
802:
796:
790:
789:
763:
740:
723:
690:
667:
636:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
506:
505:
483:
482:
481:
464:
463:
462:
461:
446:Switch to keep
440:
439:
414:
413:
412:
381:
362:
344:
343:
342:
341:
324:
323:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
180:
159:
127:
126:
67:
62:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1539:
1527:
1525:
1520:
1514:
1513:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1491:
1490:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1472:
1471:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1405:
1404:
1400:
1397:
1394:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1349:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1331:
1330:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1314:
1311:
1307:
1304:
1299:
1294:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1282:
1281:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1141:
1137:
1132:
1125:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1049:
1045:
1040:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1014:
1010:
1005:
1001:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
985:
981:
977:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
962:
958:
954:
949:
946:
945:
944:
939:
935:
930:
925:
921:
918:
916:
912:
908:
904:
901:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
880:
879:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
859:
856:
853:
852:
830:
827:
826:
821:
817:
813:
809:
806:
803:
800:
797:
794:
793:
792:
791:
788:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
762:
759:
758:
757:
753:
752:
744:
741:
739:
735:
731:
727:
724:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
691:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
665:
661:
658:
655:
651:
645:
641:
637:
635:
631:
628:
625:
621:
615:
611:
607:
603:
600:
599:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
575:
574:
570:
566:
561:
560:
559:
555:
551:
546:
540:
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
509:
508:
507:
504:
500:
496:
492:
487:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:
466:
465:
460:
457:
452:
447:
444:
443:
442:
441:
438:
437:
436:
433:
428:
420:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
398:
397:
393:
389:
388:76.66.202.139
385:
382:
380:
376:
372:
371:
366:
363:
361:
357:
353:
349:
346:
345:
340:
336:
332:
328:
327:
326:
325:
322:
318:
314:
309:
306:
305:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
275:
274:
270:
266:
261:
260:
259:
255:
251:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
232:
228:
224:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
206:
205:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
181:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
158:
154:
150:
146:
143:
142:
141:
140:
136:
132:
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:
1518:
1515:
1495:or merge to
1492:
1473:
1453:Badger Drink
1430:
1411:Badger Drink
1401:
1388:
1352:
1332:
1298:encyclopedic
1297:
1287:
1283:
1260:
1237:
1123:
1084:
1080:
1073:
947:
923:
919:
902:
881:
833:
828:
756:
754:
747:
742:
725:
692:
670:
656:
649:Collectonian
639:
626:
619:Collectonian
601:
583:Badger Drink
485:
445:
422:
416:
383:
368:
364:
347:
307:
190:
186:
182:
161:
144:
128:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1431:exceptional
1353:significant
1131:Josiah Rowe
1089:Josiah Rowe
1081:exceptional
1039:Josiah Rowe
1004:Josiah Rowe
929:Josiah Rowe
907:Niteshift36
705:WP:PRESERVE
697:WP:DEADLINE
693:Strong keep
1396:television
1242:The Google
771:notability
350:per nom.
149:Drawn Some
701:WP:BEFORE
687:User:Ikip
614:Wp:MOS-TV
455:cierekim
431:cierekim
352:JBsupreme
1501:Karanacs
1399:episodes
1284:Comments
1140:contribs
1098:contribs
1085:required
1048:contribs
1013:contribs
938:contribs
894:contribs
750:Schmidt,
660:contribs
630:contribs
579:WP:CIVIL
331:Hairhorn
195:Hairhorn
166:Showtime
123:View log
56:three...
1407:notable
1372:Rlendog
1337:Rlendog
1214:ThuranX
1152:ThuranX
1110:ThuranX
1074:M*A*S*H
1060:ThuranX
1024:ThuranX
1000:WP:PLOT
953:ThuranX
948:Comment
924:M*A*S*H
775:M*A*S*H
699:as per
646:. — --
550:ThuranX
471:ThuranX
402:ThuranX
313:ThuranX
223:ThuranX
187:However
183:Comment
131:ThuranX
90:protect
85:history
1493:Delete
1389:Delete
1357:Cazort
1318:Cazort
1238:before
867:Cazort
779:Cazort
681:, and
612:. Per
610:WP:WAF
602:Delete
517:Cazort
348:S'MASH
283:Cazort
250:Cazort
170:Cazort
162:Delete
145:Delete
118:delete
94:delete
1124:noted
861:Read
850:Focus
308:reply
121:) – (
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
1505:talk
1482:talk
1474:Keep
1457:talk
1439:talk
1415:talk
1393:Some
1376:talk
1361:talk
1341:talk
1333:Keep
1322:talk
1269:talk
1251:talk
1218:talk
1203:talk
1156:talk
1136:talk
1114:talk
1094:talk
1064:talk
1044:talk
1028:talk
1009:talk
980:talk
957:talk
934:talk
911:talk
903:Keep
890:talk
882:Keep
871:talk
863:WP:N
829:Keep
816:talk
812:Ikip
783:talk
743:Keep
734:talk
730:Ikip
717:talk
713:Ikip
703:and
671:Note
654:talk
640:Note
624:talk
608:and
606:WP:N
587:talk
569:talk
565:Ikip
554:talk
535:talk
531:Ikip
521:talk
499:talk
475:talk
450:Dloh
426:Dloh
406:talk
392:talk
375:talk
356:talk
335:talk
317:talk
287:talk
279:WP:N
269:talk
265:Ikip
254:talk
227:talk
213:talk
209:Gigs
199:talk
191:keep
174:talk
153:talk
135:talk
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
1449:OCD
1403:are
892:) (
370:DGG
53:two
50:One
1507:)
1484:)
1459:)
1441:)
1417:)
1391:.
1378:)
1363:)
1343:)
1324:)
1312:,
1271:)
1261:me
1253:)
1245:--
1220:)
1205:)
1158:)
1138:•
1116:)
1096:•
1066:)
1046:•
1030:)
1011:•
982:)
974:--
959:)
936:•
913:)
896:)
873:)
818:)
785:)
736:)
719:)
677:,
662:)
632:)
589:)
571:)
556:)
537:)
523:)
501:)
477:)
408:)
394:)
377:)
358:)
337:)
319:)
289:)
271:)
256:)
229:)
215:)
201:)
176:)
155:)
137:)
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
48:.
1503:(
1480:(
1455:(
1437:(
1413:(
1374:(
1359:(
1339:(
1320:(
1290::
1267:(
1249:(
1216:(
1201:(
1154:(
1142:)
1134:(
1112:(
1100:)
1092:(
1062:(
1050:)
1042:(
1037:—
1026:(
1015:)
1007:(
978:(
955:(
940:)
932:(
909:(
888:(
869:(
847:m
844:a
841:e
838:r
835:D
814:(
781:(
732:(
715:(
657:·
652:(
627:·
622:(
585:(
567:(
552:(
533:(
519:(
497:(
473:(
421:.
404:(
390:(
373:(
354:(
333:(
315:(
285:(
267:(
252:(
225:(
211:(
197:(
172:(
151:(
133:(
125:)
115:(
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.