Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear Dad...Again

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by King of Hearts (talk | contribs) at 05:20, 19 May 2009 (Closing debate; result was keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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 per improvements and WP:DEADLINE. AfD is not cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dad...Again

Dear Dad...Again (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Prodded almost two years ago; no independent assertions of notability. ThuranX (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It's been prodded for two years with nothing but trivia, which I removed, an IB and one line of plot. Now it's one line of plot and the IB. What notability does it assert? ThuranX (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have stubs all the time, waiting to be filled out. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all of these episodes seem to have entries, and deleting this one will break the scheme and the navigation in the sidebox. If these are to be deleted/pruned then a policy is needed to judge amongst them, and decide what is a reasonable fork-for-length and what isn't. JJL (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply My intent is to delete more, but mass deletions of such messy situations inevitably lead to accusations of bad faith and vendettas and so on. One at a time is the way to go. If I had nominated a mass of the episodes, I'd likewise be opposed for NOT nominating one at a time. As well, OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a reason to keep. Further, nothing says the navbox cannot send readers to a list of episodes. ThuranX (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well, this isn't so much a case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as it is a lengthy list of very similar articles from this and other TV shows. A single policy is the best way to handle it. I can view this one on its own as failing WP:N and in contest as passing WP:SPLITTING and deleting it as being unfortunate to delete just some of them in light of WP:Summary_style#Subarticle_navigation. In the context of M*A*S*H and all the attention it has garnered, and thinking of how so many TV shows are handled this way on WP, I don't think going piecemeal is the right approach. Some discussion on how TV shows like this should be handled would useful (cf. the recent success of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force for the raft of builtaeral relations articles). JJL (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gaming the system isn't appreciated. Had I nominated the dozens of bad MASH articles which all fail PLOT and have been prodded for years, then you'd be here complaining the same damn thing, instead you're complaining that I nominated one, and should instead formulate a policy single-handedly before nominating crap for deletion. This is far easier to resolve than you think. The South Park episodes have a different navigation system than MASH does; using that system would take readers to the notable articles directly, and to the list of episodes if not notable. And insisting that without a uniform policy this can't be nom'd is a form of OTHERCRAPEXISTS, it'st 'other crap will still exist and that's somehow unfair. ThuranX (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I encourage you to WP:AGF. JJL (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_3) shows that there are already breaks in the system you're so reluctant to see destroyed. Clearly this can be winnowed some more, with notable episodes being broken out, nad non-notables relegated to the episode list. No one's asking for a salting, so if truly WP:RS material occurs, they can be recreated as stronger articles. ThuranX (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way to deal with breaks in sequence is to write the missing partsDGG (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not if there's nothing notable to write about. The vast majority of MASH episodes demonstrate that there is not. ThuranX (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perhaps the solution to to merge the articles properly with consensus obtained after discussing it on an appropriate page, instead of taking it here? thats merge , not redirect to a over-short list of teasers. Long or short, combined or separate, the material has to say what happens in the episode. Any episode summary that end in ... is almost certainly not encyclopedic content. Bad content is our problem, not whether or not we have the content in separate articles. I am a little interest by the announced decision ihere at an AfD to change the balance of articles about episodes. we've been discussing what to do about fiction without reaching a conclusion, but with some attempt at compromise. It seems decidedly unhelpful to try to start a campaign now. DGG (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply What notability does each demonstrate? NONE. NO assertions of notability. No real world content. And the bad faith accusation that I'm somehow circumventing a non-starter discussion on notability in fiction is ridiculous; I've been involved with it for over year, and was there when the community overwhelmingly rejected FICT. I've nominated just a few of the bad articles to avoid exactly that attack, and now that I'm getting the attacks anyways, it's at least clear that there's no way to nominate fiction without being attacked. ThuranX (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment the issue isn't individual notability of the episodes as much as organization/splitting: How best to keep the M*A*S*H article from being too big to be readable. I wouldn't object to each season having a single page, but there should be a discussion of a uniform way to handle this. We have many TV series covered here and deleting episodes here-and-there isn't a scalable way of addressing the issue. Also, there are plenty of reliable sources: See the episode guides listed here [1] for example. JJL (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fill in a better plot summary. There are several books out that have commentary on MASH episodes, pre 1990 TV is at a disadvantage for having the first run before the Internet age. Also when quoting WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, keep in mind: Wikipedia:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he thinks it's clever. Not the first time he's used it, either. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There appears to be a misunderstanding. It has not been PRODDED for 2 years. Dlohcierekim 03:23, 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]
  • Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • commentNiteshift36 has made this same small, unsupported statement at many, if not all, of these MASH AfDs, and not provided any sort of 'proof' of notability assertion within any such article. ThuranX (talk) 13:41, 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 08:41, 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]
  • Delete - trivial coverage. Would be suitable as a redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep These episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites, which 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. In reagrds 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 a majority of editors supporting its removal, and editors removing the section, so much so the page has been protected for 2 weeks. 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
  • 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) 01:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. The sources provided by Ikip and others demonstrate notability, as defined on Wikipedia. This particular episode is a bit more dubious than some others, but in my judgment the notability criterion has been met. More real-world content is needed, but that's an editorial problem, not a deletion rationale. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources referred to only support the tiny blurb, yet make no assertions of individual notability for this article. This material could easily be moved to the LoE. ThuranX (talk) 04:24, 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. 06:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 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. Rlendog (talk) 02:53, 18 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dear_Dad...Again&oldid=290880457"