Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ringbanger


 * 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 00:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ringbanger

 * ( [ 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) 02:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge properly, by which I mean retaining all content unless there is consensus to delete some of it.  Wh  There was been a merge tag removed 2 years ago, it should have been discussed and merged at that point., there was never a prod on it.  DGG (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been tagged with the GNG warning prod for two years. ThuranX (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). There seems to be some lack of policy understanding. The GNG tag is not a PROD Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  03:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge Worth including in encyclopedia. A notable series. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No one's proposed an AfD of the article about the series. Is this episode notable? Please explain why here and in the article. ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 15 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) 04:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:28, 15 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) 04:34, 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) 05:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentThe 'improvements' above are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, in an attempt to put sources on the page. On this particular article, no such sources have even been added. However, my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. ThuranX (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources have been added now, as has a cited section on the themes of the episode and its sociological significance. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:46, 17 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  08:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He is already moving on to season two of MASH: please see 5 O’Clock Charlie article. Running in circles is very time consuming. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:19, 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)


 * 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, causing unnecessary work and drama. A lot can be learned from the previous attempts to delete the South Park episodes, frustrated editors restarted  WikiProject South Park to make South Park episodes good and featured articles, and assure that all episodes exceed wikipedia guidelines. There is already a dormaint WikiProject M*A*S*H which can be restarted. In regards to guidelines about this, WP:FICT, a proposed guideline to address episodes  failed for the third time. WP:PLOT is in an edit war, with editors removing the section, so much so the page has been protected for 2 weeks. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 17 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) 02:00, 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. 06:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ReplyI'll thank you to keep accusations of bad faith and intentional disruption to yourself. The presumption of notability is a failure of sense. There's a reason for WP:NOTE, to define and establish notability because it cannot be assumed. ThuranX (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep Article now seems easily noteable and per Schmidt mass nomination focussed on a single topic seems poor form. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:11, 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.