Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bananas, Crackers and Nuts


 * 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 &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bananas, Crackers and Nuts

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

This article has a trivia section, and a "Detailed Story" (And it is.) There are no assertions of importance, notability, or use of sources in the article. ThuranX (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * '''Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  02:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * keep 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. To say it's been in need of improvement for 2 years as a reason to delete is just wrong. 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  13:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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) 03:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Article has had tags for two years asking for such to no avail. ThuranX (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY it replaced your argument.
 * No, it did not. It makes an effective summary of a longer counter-argument that I don't feel like Cut and Pasting to each and every AfD nom I've made, chasing you all over for an hour to do so. As well, the essay you cite specifically says do not even use it itself to counter others. As well, i did NOT reference OCE as policy, but rather as a description of your argument. Do not mischaracterize my words in that way, nor put them in my mouth. Your actions already break AGF, on both your part and mine. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a real problem 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." Ikip (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources, episodes aren't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 03:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Added sources, will this matter in your !vote? Probably not I fear :( Ikip (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to appropriate M*A*S*H* season 1 episode list. Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but an overly long plot summary. Can be pared down some and merged into season list (which, FYI, needs reformatting, seriously). Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles, redirecting per norm. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments of Richard...there is no WP:DEADLINE Ikip (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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 -  St ar bli nd  16:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't inherited. Drawn Some (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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) 17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since those liks to the "complete mash episode guide" etc... don't establish independent notability for this episode. Then redirect to the list of article.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing nominator please note: there is now. The episode won an ACE Eddie Award for editing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. That aside, I get an uncomfortable sense that this series of nominations by ThuranX may somehow be related to the discussion of him at ANI.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't inherited from siblings or parents and the article makes no claim of importance or significance for the subject. Also, please assume good faith, you are declaring that you are not. Drawn Some (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Inapplicable, as the episode exists as part of the notable series. Merge discussions belong on the talk page. Tagging for sources belongs at the article. That no one has added sources that satisfy the nom or other editors contravenes WP:DEADLINE. Because of WP:COMMONSENSE presemption of notability, Wikipedia allows that such articles may sit and grow, fast or slow, for as long as it takes. The nomination of an entire series of established and related articles of a notable series in a very short time speaks for itself.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC
 * As someone who has been wrongly accused of having a particular motivation for a behavior, I would urge you to not draw conclusions about his possible motivation or reason for doing something and certainly do not publicly state your thoughts if you cannot avoid thinking them. Direct your criticism at the behavior and not at what you suppose may be the reason behind the behavior.  It is one thing to criticize him for nominating an article for deletion but it is entirely another to speculate about why he did it, and it is clearly just speculation and accusations on your part as his stated reasons are different. As I pointed out to someone else, he is only nominating the articles, not deciding whether or not they are to be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have explained my motivation for individual nominations repeatedly; that this is not being listened to by others is frustrating, and makes for a good STRAWMAN to distract from the actual issues at hand: that the article makes no assertions of Notability. It appears some TV Guide listings, and fan-based books have been added as significant sources and assertions of notability, but I don't see those assertions in the article. ThuranX (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am striking it here and removing it entirely from other discussions. As long as there is no connection, none need be sought. I apologize for my mis-impression.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and if you think about it, even if it were true, the nominator's motivation shouldn't affect the outcome of an AfD, the guidelines and policies should. Drawn Some (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.   D r e a m Focus  21:47, 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) 04:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've found episode article to be usefull. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This episode won an ACE Eddie Award for editing.  Even without that, the sources would establish notability.  More real-world context is needed, per WP:WAF, but that alone is not a justification for deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If that can be sourced properly, and the article undergoes a massive PLOT reduction, then I'll withdraw this nomination. ThuranX (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "if that can be sourced properly"? I added it to the article, with a citation to p. 25 of the Wittebols book.  You can check it for yourself on Google Books. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant exactly what I said. WHEN I posted that, there was no such info nor citation. I see you are now joining in the Bad Faith discussion that Richard Arthur Norton is perpetrating, in which you reply to or redact commentaries in a way that deliberately makes mine look as though I am ignoring what you say. Deplorable behavior. ThuranX (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comment above is time-stamped 13:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC). In this diff, time-stamped 05:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC), I added the material about the ACE Eddie Award.  The material was added eight hours prior to your posting.  Please redact your comment.  An apology would be helpful as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No apology will be made; when I looked, I did not see it present in the article. That's simple enough, and exactly what I said earlier. I note that no clean up happened either, so I guess if you're insisting I AGF, then it would be proper for you to do your part as well, and clean the thing up. ThuranX (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The award is sufficient for notability, as always. The rest is an editing question. That the nomination did not search for such things according to WP:BEFORE seems to be a consistent problem.Continuing proof for my view that nominations without them should be rejected. DGG (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the series. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you notice that this was an award-winning episode? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:13, 19 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.