Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Army-Navy Game (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... 15:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Army-Navy Game (M*A*S*H)

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

Article consists of a nearly shot-for-shot plot summary, a trivia section and makes no assertions of notability of any sort. As with all others nominated, prodded for two years. Continuing my efforts to review a few MASH episodes per day. ThuranX (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Rlendog (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this unreferenced article with no claim of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article appears to be a little   insignificant  20:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find any reliable sources even mentioning this episode! Cazort (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources you say?  No article then!  Simple!  JBsupreme (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that whoever said there are "no reliable sources" available was mistaken. Oops!
 * Merge and redirect to the episode list. It very likely has a primary source 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So what? There's NO assertions that the episode is notable. ThuranX (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  03:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand 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) 04:26, 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) 04:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am concerned when editors call other editor good faith contributions "crap". Does this really help come to a consensus? Just like cruft, "this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but a short plot summary which is already covered in season list and this is an unlikely search term. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles, doesn't belong here. M*A*S*H wikia for transwiking? --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments of Richard...there is no WP:DEADLINE Ikip (talk) 15:06, 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) 17:25, 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. 20:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As before, if millions of people thought the episode notable enough to watch, then its clearly notable enough to have an article. Their opinions are far more valid to me, than that of any newspaper critic, who has far fewer readers than the show has viewers.  Also, can you get third party media coverage of a show back then?  Did they talk about each episode as much as they do these days?   D r e a m Focus  21:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Your reasoning is faulty. There was third party coverage of television back then, plenty of it. However, the culture of 'tv! watch-it, watch-it, or you're not cool!' wasn't there. Coverage focused on actors, or on truly notable episodes. Newspaper coverage of the finale of MASH is abundant, and is cited in that episode's article, showing that it was notable then, as now. In fact, that's better as a standard for measuring durability of notability, rather than recentism-oriented bursts of coverage which then fade into obscurity, as happens with some of the news events WP prepares articles about. Sometimes those come up here and are deleted because consensus is that 15 seconds of fame isn't the same as lasting notability. I'd argue a similar thing applies here. We can find no flash in the pan coverage, nor durable coverage. If contemporary coverage is found when the amount of media coverage was more reactive to events of significant notability than to every episode each day, then there's more likely to be lasting proofs of notability: Consider 'who shot JR?', the Dream reveal at the end of that season, that Higgins was Robin Masters, Kirk and Uhura's kiss, and so on. Those are notable events in Television, not every single broadcast episode. By your logic, Every failed pilot is notable, because it was broadcast, and surely some people watched it. That it went nowhere and is no longer remembered is something you'd dismiss, which is unfortunate, because that lack of sources demonstrating the notability of that failed pilot is what you'd need. ThuranX (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How long will people remember that? Some remember every episode they watched and liked perhaps.  Some watch the old episodes on DVD collections, and remember them.  Most of the history stuff on the wikipedia is about people almost no one remembers.  I think the episodes of MASH have more people remembering them, than some ancient Byzantium emperor or whatever.  So how many people remember something, isn't really a valid reason to keep or destroy. And if the pilot failed, it means no one watched it, the ratings too low for it to succeed and become a notable show.   D r e a m Focus  00:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So your argument is that someohow, any bit of pop culture is inherently more important than emperors of ancient empires? Interesting perspective on the world, and on the project. ThuranX (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't what I said. My point was, your argument over whether or not anyone remembers it, isn't relevant, since there is a lot of historical stuff which no one remembers either.   D r e a m Focus  08:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article now has sources. Rlendog (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentThe sources Rlendog refers to are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, but my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. ThuranX (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that the availablility of these sources (and others that are available offline but not currently included in the article) demonstrate that the episode is notable. Rlendog (talk) 03:03, 18 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) 04:10, 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) 04:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly how did you find this particular article to be of value? You've posted this exact comment at every one of these AfDs, so I'd like to know exactly, and specifically, how you found each of these to individually be useful to you? thank you for taking the time to explain each of these. i'd also note that this editor wishes I'd individually nom'd them even slower than five or six at a time, instead of a group nom. ThuranX (talk) 05:27, 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) 05:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The David Scott Diffrient book also has commentary for every episode, and discusses real world events that the episode is parodying or providing commentary to. More help is needed with that. The scrolling feature of Google Books can make you jump several pages, its very annoying to scroll with it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The bits thus far cited as so generic as to apply to any episode, and do not individually address what makes any one given episode important. Saying that 'this episode mocks aspects of the military' is so completely obivous that it's empty. ThuranX (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable. This is not CSD so assertions of notability are not a relevant issue.  Colonel Warden (talk) 07:30, 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. Karanacs (talk) 15:52, 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.