Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Longjohn Flap


 * 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 and cleanup. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Longjohn Flap

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

Prodded almost two years ago; no independent assertions of notability. ThuranX (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * D*E*L*E*T*E Individual episodes of a TV series are by no means inherently notable, not even for a TV series as notable as M*A*S*H. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per my comment for 5 O'Clock Charlie. Adds little; it seems to be an article for the sake of having an article. Redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This particular episode makes a very mild claim to importance in that it supposedly was the first episode written by Alan Alda. Of course there is no reference given and it is unlikely that this was written about in sufficient depth and breadth to satisfy requirements for notability.  I'll hold off on my "delete" though in case someone has references that discuss this episode. Drawn Some (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * reply that's minor, even if substantiated, and can easily be included in thsi episode's 'list of episodes' summary with citation. ThuranX (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Articles do not need to make claims of importance - that's why we have numerous articles about obscurities such as Hydnum rufescens. I have added two citations to the article which wasn't difficult - just a matter of looking - and so the comments are now obsolete.  See WP:NOEFFORT and WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ReplyDon't insult every other editor who commented. As said before, that level of material can easily be handled at the list of episodes. And yes, articles do need to substantiate the notability of the topic. The article you reference has three sources, so I suppose that met the burden of NOTE for the botany, or mycology, group. ThuranX (talk) 20:22, 13 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) 04:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:14, 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) 13:41, 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  08:40, 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) 09:23, 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)
 * And yet again, I am forced to follow behin ThuranX and source these notable articles, when this all could have been avoided by discussing this at List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) and gaining a consensus first. Why was WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE ignored? Why the unnecessary drama? What reaction did you expect?Ikip (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Blah blah blah. I've explained myself over and over and over and over. I'm not interested in Merge/Redirects of non-notable episodes with improbable (to be kind) titles which won't ever be searched on. I do not believe that the vast majority of my nominated pages describe ANYTHING Notable. Episode Guides are proof of SERIES notability, NOT of each episode. ThuranX (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. I see no evidence, however, that it's supported by Wikipedia policy or guidelines. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep These episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites, which I will add here shortly. 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, per WP:PRESERVE. In reagrds to guidelines about this, WP:FICT, a proposed guideline to address episodes  failed for the third time. WP:PLOT is being seriously attacked, so much so the page is protected for 2 weeks. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. Sources added establish notability, as defined at WP:GNG.  More real-world content is needed, but that's an editorial issue, not a deletion rationale. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They do not meet the GNG definition of Notability - the coverage does not address the subject in detail, nor is it in most of these cases more than trivial. The sources are episode guides. They recount the plot, which is already present without sources and without real world context. Citing a plot summary by fans to other plot summaries published by fans doesn't make for the real world notability needed. ThuranX (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether it's trivial or not is a matter of individual judgment. You think it is, I think it's not.  We'll have to agree to disagree, and see which side the community comes down on. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:10, 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. 06:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand Dloh  cierekim  14:30, 17 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.