Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceasefire (M*A*S*H)


 * 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. One two three... 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ceasefire (M*A*S*H)

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

Article is redundant to already existing episode list. As with all others nominated, prodded for two years. ThuranX (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not finding any sources that establish that this episode is notable. Cazort (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no assertion of importance or significance. Kudos to ThuranX for looking into this rubbish bin of trivia. Drawn Some (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - what does "prodded for two years" mean? If an article was WP:PRODed two years ago, either that's irrelevant or it was deleted about 103 weeks ago. Nosleep  break my slumber 04:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 'replydespite a prod two years ago, no sources have been found for it, meaning that were someone to say 'leave it, let's prod it to see if it can be improved', I've shown that didn't work. I try to be honest about the article history in regard to such things. ThuranX (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's redundant to the Episode list, there's nothing to merge. ThuranX (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Merger preserves the edit history for GFDL. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  03:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, there is a misunderstanding of process that needs to addressed, perhaps by a wonk. The GNG tag is not a PROD. Of course.  Dloh  cierekim  03:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to preserve, as this is redundant to the LoE already. There's no good reason for a redirect, as the title is not a likely search term. Any tag asking for more to be done is meant to prod the authors to do more; a prod's a PROD, and yes, only a process wonk would care to make that distinction as though it's enough to save the article. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 15 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. 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) 04:17, 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. This is the same argument you've cut n pasted all night, I have no doubt that you'll soon reply to this and make me chase you all over again for that reply. ThuranX (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but a very brief episode summary that seems an appropriate length. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles. Unlikely search term, so redirect unnecessary.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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) 15:50, 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) 17:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 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.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:08, 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 useful. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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) 14:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. I've added some real-world sourcing to a few of these M*A*S*H 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 material exists to add the real-world material which these articles need. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentThe sources referred to above are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, which can easily be merged to the LoE, improving the LoE with plenty of plot summary citations. However, my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. LoEs with plot citations would be a benefit to the project, because it can easily reduce vandalism issues, as any editor can point to the sources to avoid plot bloat. Further, as a List, there's usually a community understanding of a lower threshold of notability for some reason. However, that's not the same as actually proving notability for a stand-alone article. ThuranX (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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) 22:35, 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) 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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) 02:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into the Season summaries Okay folks, I know M*A*S*H is a notable series, & many people here sincerely believe that every episode is therefore notable... but frankly a lot of episodes could be summarized as "The staff of the 4077 are confronted with an absurd situation/pompous jerk/horror of war, & Hawkeye deals with it through humor. And Frank Burns is humiliated." Many of the M*A*S*H episodes could be merged into the respective season summary, with minimal loss of notable content; I think this is proven by the fact few of these have been developed beyond providing a few details of the episode's creation & an extensive plot summary. Even when something more could be said about the episode (for example, the few that "Spear-chucker" Jones appears in, or the 2 or 3 in which Loudon Wainwright III has a supporting role), no one has bothered to add that material. Now in the greater scheme of Wikipedia the presence of these articles don't bother me (which is why I'm only voting on deletion in this one instance), but the work of either merging the articles on the less-prominent M*A*S*H episodes into another article, or improving at least a few into B-class articles is a chore that's been waiting far too long for someone to do. -- llywrch (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Articles are not redundant to lists as articles are our preferred format. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the series list; Wikipedia is not for plot summaries and this episode has no special notability. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). The article does not currently meet the GNG (requires significant coverage, beyond just a reworking of the plot). Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 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.