Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sometimes You Hear the Bullet


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes You Hear the Bullet

 * ( [ 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. ThuranX (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge properly, by which I mean retaining all content including the picture unless there is consensus to delete some of it.   At least this one does describe the whole episode.  . DGG (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's redundant to the Episode list, there's nothing to merge. No LoE for the series has pictures, and such pictures in LoEs have previously been frowned on and removed from other LoE's as Copyvios, because they aren't reflecting specific real world content related to the topic, thus failing fair-use. ThuranX (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep orMerge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  03:20, 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) 04:15, 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) 04:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to appropriate M*A*S*H* 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. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:28, 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) 15:48, 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) 17:34, 15 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.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:09, 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. I also wish the nominator had done just one or two at a time instead of 15. We can see the same comments on almost every one of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:32, 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) 05:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentThe sources referred to above are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, in an attempt to put sources on the page. However, my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. ThuranX (talk) 14:01, 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) 22:42, 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)
 * Note: This episode was nominated for a Writers Guild Award, which the nominator could have found out fairly easily prior to nominating the article for deletion. I've added that information, along with some analysis and comments from the actors involved (all cited, of course.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I remind you: It's NOT MY JOB to fix up every bad article on a non=notable subject on here. They were tagged for two years for improvement and determination of a GNG acceptable level of notability. If nothing was found in two years, why should I restart the entire process? I'm not sure that nomination is enough, in fact, it seems I've seen a number of deletions pass as delete because a nomination is the only assertion of notability. Many people lose contests, that doesn't make msot losers notable. Few win, that usually makes them notable. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that you needed to bring it up to GA status. Just a bit of due diligence prior to AfD, that's all.  And a nomination is different from "losing".  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs)
 * No, that's exactly what you're saying - that I should have done all I could to make it FA, and that if I couldn't it would be ME failing, not the subject. And did they win the award? NO? then they lost. Win and lose are pretty damn binary. Pass and fail. ThuranX (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell all studio movies can be added to Wikipedia and the references are the reviews. What studio movies, let us say post 1950, are not notable? Not every movie wins an award, should we only include award winning movies? And once again, try not to use the essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:43, 19 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) 02:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is now clearly notable per references added by Ikip and others. Even in current state its  a good piece of writing that captures the salient points about the episode.  I also echo the comment that it would have been preferable to nominate only one or two episodes at a time – the encyclopaedia will loose in completeness if some episodes are deleted because folk weren’t able to improve the whole series in time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I find these type of articles immensely useful and they often contain info that cannot be summarized in a list-of-episodes page format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.3.192.7 (talk) 19:47, 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.