Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear Dad


 * 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. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, but there seems to be a firm consensus to keep the article. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dad

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

This article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content. Continuing my reviewing of a few a night. ThuranX (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge properly, by which I mean retaining all content unless there is consensus to delete some of it. Why are these being brought here? Is the merge being opposed? . DGG (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To avoid process wonkery by inclusionists such as yourself. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as no assertion of importance or significance. And let's all remain civil, thanks again to ThuranX for taking time to sort through all of these and put them up for AfD. Drawn Some (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * merge and redirect per DGG DGG and I differ strongly on notability requirement, so please spare me the incivility hurled in his direction. Process wonkery? There is a process for dealing with most matters on Wikipedia. AFD is not the place for this article and those like it.  Dloh  cierekim  02:55, 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. Michael Schmidt makes a good observation below.  Dloh  cierekim  13:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing worth merging, just an unsourced plot summary and trivia. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 03:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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) 04:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.  D r e a m Focus  08:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He is already moving on to season two of MASH: please see 5 O’Clock Charlie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It is an accurate assessment. What do you find to be inaccurate about it? Every season one was nominated and a start was made in season two, that escaped notice by most of the people commenting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note there was no discussion about this on the episode page, as is usually the custom. Ikip (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep These episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites, which I have added to the other 24 articles up for deletion, and I will add here shortly. Per WP:PRESERVE, 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. In regards 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 editors removing the section, so much so the page has been protected for 2 weeks. A lot can be learned from the last attempt to delete the South Park episodes, frustrated editors restarted  WikiProject South Park to make South Park episodes good and featured articles, and assure that all episodes exceed wikipedia guidelines. There is already a dormaint WikiProject M*A*S*H which can be restarted. If South Park episodes have the potential to become featured articles, surely M*A*S*H episodes do.  Ikip (talk) 00:56, 17 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) 02:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. The episode guides and critical sources which have recently been added establish notability.  (An episode guide is not a phone book.)  More real-world context is needed, but that is an editorial issue, not an argument for deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. The episode guides reflect notability of the series, NOT of the individual episodes. Please find writings which are dedicated to examining the real world notability of this particular episode, which your current sources do not appear to do. I remind you again that Notability is not a heritable trait. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And I point out to you again that this is not an "inheritance" argument. It's taken directly from the general notability guideline. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * YES, it is an inhertiance argument. Notability for the show is demonstrated by the episode guide, not notabilty of each episode individually. You premise that if the show is notable all episodes are. ThuranX (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree on this, and see what the community thinks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have to do anything you say I have to. I keep saying this. Episode guides demonstrate notability of the series, not the episodes, because they make no distinctions at all between episodes in terms of coverage. It's all the same. Wikipedia is not an episode guide. We have standards for notability. Each episode article must on it's own describe why that particular episode is notable. Coverage in an episode guide merely establishes that it's an episode in a notable series, and since notability is NOT inherited, that's not enough. ThuranX (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made my argument, and you've made yours. Neither of us is going to convince the other.  But you can have the last word for now, since it seems so important to you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. 06:28, 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) 02:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to the list of episodes in the series; nothing much substantial to say about it. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 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.