Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chief Surgeon Who?


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn, article kept.  Jamie ☆ S93  16:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Chief Surgeon Who?

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

This article, after my cleanup of the plot and trivia, which I did after the location of some sources which actually do establish actual notability, seems reasonable now, and I withdraw this nomination. ThuranX (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

with a long 'overview' and even longer (much longer) 'detailed story' which goes into scene by scene detail, and a trivia section, the article still shows no real world information nor notability. ThuranX (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * '''Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  02:58, 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. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Article has had tags for two years asking for such to no avail. ThuranX (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Only a mild claim assertion of importance or significance in that this is Klinger's first appearance but that information is already in the Season 1 list of episodes. Drawn Some (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete via Redirect to appropriate M*A*S*H* season episode list. Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but an overly long plot summary and claimed "Mashisms" that is unsourced. 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) 04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep there is no WP:DEADLINE this should have been discussed on List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) first. There is little basis to have this article to be removed from wikipedia, WP:FICT has failed to become a guideline three times, and WP:PLOT is currently under an intense edit war. Ikip (talk) 15:35, 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  16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't inherited. Drawn Some (talk) 16:37, 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) 18:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing nominator please note there is now. This episode won a Writers Guild Award. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:02, 16 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. 20:34, 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  21:50, 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) 04:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This episode won a Writers Guild Award, a fact which I've just added to the article, along with some other cited real-world material.  More is needed, but notability is certainly established. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of that award, which is sufficient to settle the matter even if one thought the episodes should otherwise be merged. The amount of plot detail is not really excessive, though it could be written more compactly. Some more production details and audience, etc information are needed, as usual. We needto take a more serious attitude towards these, but that means expansion, not subtraction. DGG (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC).
 * I believe all 24 episodes from season one are up for deletion List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), please everyone expresses an opinion at each of the 24, one way or the other. Some are still stubby and don't have a full plot summary in yet, but the vote is whether they have the right to exist to be expanded upon later. It is a lot faster to add an AFD tag then it is to write a full plot summary and garner the reviews. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

please stop canvassing and aqccusing me of bad faith actions, I'm sick and tired of it and you've been told before. ThuranX (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as the nom has been appropriately withdrawn. Rlendog (talk) 02:51, 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.