Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Story (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   keep. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, but there seems to be a firm consensus to keep the article. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Love Story (M*A*S*H)

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

Like my previous noms, 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. Article has been prodded for two years. ThuranX (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge properly, by which I mean retaining all content unless there is consensus to delete some of it.  And adding the conclusion of the episode, if there is one.   We do not do teasers. Why are these being brought here? Is the merge being opposed? I do not see the article ever having been prodded at all. It was tagged for improvement, though, and it needed it.  DGG (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To avoid process wonkery by inclusionists such as yourself. Article tagged for the GNG prod two years ago. ThuranX (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge as above; properly split-for-length. JJL (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Was not properly split for length; there's nothing there but PLOT. ThuranX (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I was referring to the overarching plan for splitting M*A*S*H. JJL (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn;'t aware there had been one at some point. However, what ever plan was there clearly broke down. Cleaning these up and, should merges be the result, making stronger articles of the LoEs is a more realistic goal. ThuranX (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per DGG. I also don't understand why these are brought here, and also, I don't understand what "process wonkery" is. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's redundant to the Episode list, there's nothing to merge. ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * '''Keep or Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of process wonkery, why are all these listed separately instead of in a single AFD?  Dloh  cierekim  03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and try to expand with a fuller plot summary 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) 04:20, 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. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:23, 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)
 * Delete and redirect to the episode list. I'm not sure i understand this no deadline stuff. This episode aired 35 years ago, and no reliable sources have yet addressed it in a fashion that would establish independent notability for it (some mash episodes -- a pure guess about 15 -- are independently notable. But not this one and the sorts of things that might make it notable, winning awards, extensive reviews, etc... are not likely to be forthcoming over three decades later.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: "lacking any assertion of notability or real world content." WP:DEADLINE: "Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. A small number of articles might make Wikipedia 1.0, but the vast majority will not and for the balance there is no deadline."
 * Your argument would appear to be that since there is no "deadline" that all content of no demonstrable independent notability should be kept until the Heat death of the universe in the hopes that someday, somehow, notability will materialize, hower unlikely that would appear to be in this case.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Closing nominator please note there have been signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing nominator please note I'm unconvinced that links to TV Guide and IMDB and "the complete Mash episode guide" establish any independent notability for this. Those sources don't even assert particular notability for this episode.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:35, 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  21:46, 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: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:12, 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) 13:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are independent sources about the episode available for the article, some referenced in the article, so meets notability. Article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:57, 18 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) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I seem to have missed this in my comments on previous M*A*S*H episode AfDs.  The Wittebols and Reiss sources are reliable and independent of the subject, therefore the requirements of the GNG are met.  It is true that at the moment the article fails WP:PLOT; however, that is an argument for improvement, not deletion.  There is no "except episode guides" clause in the GNG. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:46, 20 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.