Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5 O’Clock Charlie


 * 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   no consensus. There were several strong and weak arguments on both sides, so consensus in this discussion was far less clear than in Articles for deletion/The Longjohn Flap or Articles for deletion/Dear Dad...Again. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

5 O’Clock Charlie

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article consists of nothing but a shot for shot PLOT, and had been prodded for almost two years. Nowhere is any assertion of notability or any real-world information of any sort. ThuranX (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC) *Keep unless you plan to delete all the other Mash episode articles. The article is atrocious, but potential exists for it to be improved and there are thousands of articles on TV show episodes. Now, if you think they're all a hopeless case, then that's a different argument. This is not an article of any quality right now, but neither are any of the other articles in the same series. Nosleep break my slumber 03:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Delete per emerging consensus and subsequent discussion, but I still consider this procedure fundamentally flawed. Nosleep break my slumber 05:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Indiscriminate information, no hope of being sourced. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So what? Does that make anything I said untrue? If articles about this TV show aren't suitable for Wikipedia, then delete them all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. You'll have to really convince me that just one or two are suitable for deletion, though, when they're all in pretty much the same shape. Nosleep  break my slumber 03:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * same gaming as always. Nom all, it's a bad faith nom, do it one by one, it's not enough. OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I will do a few a night till it's done. ThuranX (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a procedure in place to nominate numerous articles at the same? And are you saying you do intend to nominate the m all overwhelming majority of them? Nosleep  break my slumber 04:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying I intend to review all of them. Certainly not all are worth nom'ing. The premiere, finale, and the one where Henry Blake dies already have enough real world coverage; I have little doubt at least a few others will be similarly notable.ThuranX (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How 'bout now? :P Nosleep  break my slumber 04:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It's not what WP is all about. As it appears to include description of every move and every shot, I'd say the article reads of WP:FANCRUFT. It should be redirected to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 2) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to parent article. No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 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 if your going to cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS please keep in mind the newer WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete there is no real world context and criticism. No reliable sources establish this as an independently notable episode. Then redirect it to the episode list.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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) 04:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep notable series, split for length. The various episode guides provide plenty of reliable coverage. JJL (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, they provide sources for a PLOT summary, and nothing else. They do not demonstrate any notability for this episode. ThuranX (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - trivial coverage. Would be suitable for a redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the, specially when that parent has such tremendous notability itself. Discussions about a merge or sourcing belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. And so what if its been prodded for 2 years? Wiki has no WP:DEADLINE that something be done within some arbitrary length of time (except when the issue is forced through AfD).  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. In this case, the parent article is the LoE, wherein none of my nominated articles, as 'split', though I do not see their writings as splittings, made any credible assertion of notability to justify the plot lengths which would, under your thinking, be used as the reason for a split. So with no notability for almost all of these (I did withdraw my nomination of one), all of these should go back to the LoE. A given episode can then be split out properly if there exists proof that that episode has independent, not inherited, notability, since WP doesn't do Inherited Notability. ThuranX (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Notability on Wikipedia is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".   It doesn't say "except episode guides".  WP:PLOT is an argument for improving balance of content, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.ThuranX (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The episode itself provides a source of some information, for example the title credits give the name of the director, as well as the plot. None of the sources cited appear to give much information beyond what is available by watching the episode. In this context, I don't necessarily agree they provide significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is excellent commentary and criticism for each episode in the guides, retyping the quotes is slow and tedious. If your clever you can get Google to spit up the text for a quote to cut and paste, and won't have to retype it. The DVD set has commentary too and are at my library, but even more work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep will add references later, as I have with the other 25+ MASH AfDs, including the pilot show. Ikip (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand per Ikip. This was overly hasty and misguided. Clearly, these articles need improvement rather than deletion. It's a shame the nominator did not try to improve this article and others like it by fixing it instead of trying to delete it. There is no time limit. And this mass listing of long standing article for deletion has in no way made it easy for the rescuers to meet the artificial time limit imposed by taking them to AFD. Kudos to the rescuers. Dloh  cierekim  14:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are independent sources available for the article, so meets notability. Article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Indiscriminate information. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.