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. Always consider cleanup before deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem for a Lightweight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Another case of overview, Detailed Story, and Trivia without any Notability. The LoE entry and the Overview are near-verbatim, and thus totally redundant. ThuranX (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 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. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has had tags for two years asking for such to no avail. ThuranX (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. ThuranX (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any other legal proceeding where someone is disallowed from pointing out similar examples, or similar case law? Legal precedent has been the basis of legal systems for over 500 years. That is why OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an essay and not a guideline, or an policy, or a pillar of Wikipedia. You have a habit of not wikilinking to it, and not citing any of the wording in that essay. You just use the word to intimidate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity is not enough in court, so I don't see why your 'legal systems' is at all germane. One may not accuse a person of a crime based on perceived similarities to a crime for which actual evidence is held, one still needs evidence. and even if that evidence exists, it still needs legal review and an entire process to determine if it's enough to make the person eligible for consideration of that crime. I don't need to wikilink to it, it's a familiar essay, and in fact, I have ONLY used it to explain how I see the nature of your argument; at no point did I invoked it as a rebuttal via policy. You're aware of this, but you continue to lie, cheat, and mischaracterize my comments. ThuranX (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources, episodes aren't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to appropriate M*A*S*H* episode list. Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but an overly long plot summary and unsourced trivia. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles, redirecting per norm. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes, and Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
• Strong keep per Richard, there is no WP:DEADLINE as per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE merging should have been discussed on List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1)before an AFD. Ikip (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep episode of one of the most notable shows in the history of television. Since MASH has several books published about it, including an episode guide (ISBN 0810980835), sourcing should be no problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited. Drawn Some (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the parent article, specially when that parent has such tremendous notability itself. 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. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think everyone makes the same argument for all M*A*S*H episodes, and I wonder why they weren't all just nominated at the same time. I'll just copy and paste from now on. 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 21:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the count is at 25. He performed an AFD on all 24 of season one, and then started at season 2. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IF YOU CANNOT STOP LYING ABOUT ME, KINDLY STOP COMING AROUND AT ALL. ThuranX (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bwuh? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, as you pointed out. You did not nominate the MASH pilot, that was completed by 10 PoundHammer and you started on deletion of season two before you finished nomination of all of season one. When I wrote "then started at season 2" I had the chronology wrong. I stand corrected. You still nominated an entire season of a show, minus the pilot, before doing the minimal due diligence to see if any episodes meet even you own strict criteria of what makes an episode notable, such as winning an award. You could have performed a Google search to find the awards and commentary we found. You could have nominated one to test your theory of notability. You could have added tags to the article, you could have asked for help from others to improve the articles. Instead you disrupted Wikipedia to make your point that your narrow definition of notability should be enforced. You also spend hours defending your nominations, sometimes in ALL CAPS, in each article, instead of helping with the effort to add references, even to the articles that met your own strict standard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yet another fat bundle of lies. First, I did look at each article; I've said that enough times that you're either deliberately lying, deliberately avoiding everything I say so that you can make assertions and then say 'I didn't KNOW he said it (because i never read his words)', or you're suffering some sort of personal issue. It's not my job to fix every non-notable article on Wikipedia. Articles are supposed to present the assertion of notability, not be a big fat plot and then have others waste time cleaning up the whole matter of notability. It's been tagged for two years. In two years, no one could find that material; I see no reason for me to assume everyone else is a lazy idiot on Wikipedia. It's far more sensible to assume no one else could find a proof of the individual notability of this show. I nominated these for deletion because they do not assert individual notability, I see no reason to undermine my own efforts by then running around and trying, in vain, given the failure of people to find notability for the vast majority, to find such. two episodes have shown specific individual notability, I've withdrawn those. A third makes a questionable assertion; questionable in that I find it to be an attempt but not enough, while others find it sufficient, this is a question of degrees. The rest have not done so. Stop implying that Ten Pound Hammer is colluding with me. I explained how that SINGLE deletion of season 2 came about, but you won't listen, instead continuing to attack me with accusations of bad faith, of impatience, of ignoring some imaginary consensus that I should have stopped while these AfDs went on. I'm sick and tired of being attacked and made out to be a liar by your cheating at this set of AfDs, 'cheating' being a characterization used first by others than myself. You have been warned, repeatedly and in multiple venues to not continue your deceptive practices, and yet you do continue.ThuranX (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no such argument. You pointed out that you did not nominate the pilot, I checked. You were correct, and I admitted I was wrong. The history shows that Ten pound hammer completed the AFD process for the pilot. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to say he 'completed' the actions, implying that he was apart of thigns and his actions are in association with mine. You know what you are doing, and what your words imply. I've notified him about your continued bad faith and manipulative language. ThuranX (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completed a degree at Rutgers University. There was no conspiracy, implied or actual, in completing that degree. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the common usage is different. Apples and oranges. You could have as easily said that tem Pound Hammer made the nomination, or filed it, or submitted it. Using 'completed' after talking about my supposed nomination fo the entire season as a hostile act implies that Ten Pound Hammer was working WITH me to achieve a goal. You're implying collusion, you've been told as much, yet you continue to insult and attack other users, after lying about said users and being warned not to do that. There's no excusing your bad behavior. ThuranX (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoid people, and I don't want to imply that you are paranoid, see conspiracies where none exist. If you remember the chronology, I had no idea that TPH nominated the MASH pilot, I incorrectly assumed you did, and apologized when you pointed out that it was not you. Can you please point out where I "insult and attack other users"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say you 'don't want to imply [me]', but you do it anyways. No limits you will not go to, eh? Just ones you SAY you won't go to. You attack him in the same stroke by implying collusion, and I've already made that clear. Your feigned confusion is cheap, at best.ThuranX (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources which have been added to support the plot summary are sufficient to establish notability. The "notability is not inherited" argument is irrelevant, because these sources (in particular the Wittebols and Reiss books) deal specifically with the episode, not merely with M*A*S*H as a whole. If notability of this episode is the reason for this AfD, that reason has been answered by the sources provided. However, the article still needs more real-world context, such as information about ratings and initial reception. I suspect that some of this information is available in the sources cited and other print works; however, I don't have access to them to add the info myself. I have added a section about the episode's theme, based on the Google Books version of the Wittebols book; but more real-world material is needed, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). However, the article's weakness in this regard is not, by itself, an argument for deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentNo, i disagree. The books are some minor evidence that a few people feel the series is not able enough for Episode guides, the Episode guides aren't sufficient to confer inherited notability to all episodes. The amount of 'real world content' given by a single source is enough to merit using it in the LoE, but it is not sufficient to support this entire article. Did the episode win any awards? Receive specific criticism about IT and only it in an essay in the newspaper? No? Find proof that THIS one episode is notable, please, and include it. Find somethign specifically speaking to this episode. ThuranX (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has never required the winning of an award as the litmus test for any entry. While every person, book, film, etc that won an award should have an article, we have hundreds if red links in the award lists for people. And every studio released movie post 1950 has an article. Your definition of notability is not the Wikipedia standard, Wikipedia only requores reliable media to have noted the episode in enough detail that every fact has a source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:38, 20 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. We need to avoid covering only recent TV series, just because there are more sources providing commentary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Multiple independent sources verify the plot, however there isn't much discussion of themes, or real world information. PhilKnight (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ample evidence of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand per arguments presented here and in the other AFD's like it. It probably would have been better to handle this in a single AFD, to avoid disruption, confusion, drama and the sheer effort of having to opine in so many of these. There is no time limit to improvements, and I do not see where the nominator tried to improve before nomming. In fact, I feel a sense of prejudice against the subject on the part of the nominator. In the brief time that these have been at AFD, a few editors have added ref's and improvements. Dlohcierekim 14:54, 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.