Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Moose (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. Always consider cleanup before deletion. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Moose (M*A*S*H)

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

Two plots, two trivia sections, no assertions of notability, and the LoE already says it all succinctly. ThuranX (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ''' Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  02:58, 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, given what a real effort to locate sourcing turned up. The nominator now claims that the sources added in this desperate, last minute rescue effort are inadequate. Who knows what more will turn up? 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. Dloh  cierekim  13:35, 17 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. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Article has had tags for two years asking for such to no avail. ThuranX (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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) 04:05, 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) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources, episodes aren't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 03:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but but an excessive summary and trivia. 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) 04:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep episode of one of the most notable shows in the history of television. Since MASH has several books published about it, including an episode guide (ISBN 0810980835), sourcing should be no problem. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't inherited. Drawn Some (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that there are sources discussing this specific episode. Rlendog (talk) 02:47, 18 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) 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP additions verify notability. Why wasn't merging this article discussed at one central place first, such as the season one MASH page, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. There is little basis to have this article removed from wikipedia, WP:FICT has failed to become a guideline three times, and WP:PLOT is under edit war. Ikip (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:10, 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. 20:12, 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  21:49, 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) 04:14, 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)
 * Keep, though slightly weaker keep than some other M*A*S*H episodes. The sources (which deal with this episode specifically, not the program in general) establish notability.  More real-world perspective is needed, but the absence of that is not a deletion criterion.  Wittebols had only a passing analytical reference to this episode, so I couldn't add the material I've added to other articles; hence my "slightly weaker" keep. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The sources do NOT establish notability for this episode. They simply support the fat plot summary, but make no assertions of notability. ThuranX (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:N. Notability is not a matter of importance, asserted or otherwise.  It's a matter of sources and we have them.  Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Notability is defined on Wikipedia as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The sources are reliable and independent of the subject, and discuss the episode specifically.  It's true that the article should contain more than just plot, but that's an argument for addition of more material, not deletion.  "Notability" doesn't mean "non-plot" coverage in reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And Listing in an episode guide is NOT significant Coverage. it's like being listed in the phone book of a town. If you live there, you are listed. That doesnt' make you mayor. ThuranX (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A phone book only lists a person's name and number, and would not denote "notability" for the person. By the same argument, a list of episodes in the series, in a chart, would not denote notability for that episode. But here we have a plot summary published that also comes with commentary and criticism, the same standard we use for a movie being reviewed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not 'the standard used for movies', although it may be used in some movie films. Most try to find signifcantly more - cast and crew interviews, for example. ThuranX (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give me an example of a post 1950 studio movie the should not have an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference is that not all episodes and series are written up in this way. The ones which are, are notable, by definition. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as before. Already compact enough, but add production and audience information. ,Consider a merge--but the main thing is to keep the content.DGG (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 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) 02:48, 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). Note that some of the sources used do not meet the definition of reliable. Karanacs (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But at least two (the books by Wittebols and Reiss) do. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:28, 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.