Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Market, to Market (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; 03:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To Market, to Market (M*A*S*H)

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

Again, a case of 'Overview, Detailed Story' Trivia. The LoE was redundant to the 'Overview', but I removed the sensationalisms at the LoE to better reflect the summary. ThuranX (talk) 03:05, 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. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:09, 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) 04:04, 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)
 * Then show your not doing this out of personal bias or recentism and nominate some Seinfeld episodes, the plot summaries of equal length and lack sources too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not CSD and there is no policy/guideline which requires such assertions in our articles. Even if there were, it is trivial for this article to pass as such episodes were watched by millions and so had good ratings. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete despite what Richard says. No sources, episodes aren't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 03:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but a very brief episode summary that seems an appropriate length. 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) 04:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There might be something useful in one of these books, but I can't view the relevant pages. The thing is, if MASH were around today, there would be no shortage of IGN reviews and such. Unfortunately, older TV episodes don't seem to stand a chance around here. Just let me know when you nominate Adam's Ribs. That one might actually be salvageable. Zagalejo^^^ 06:40, 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) 15:47, 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) 16:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Prominent episode of one of US television's most notable series. The episode is covered in books and newspapers, and additional material should be added to the article. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 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) 17:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Episode articles were very popular in Wikipedia's early days, but they have been superseded by entertainment wikis | "Monster M*A*S*H" is the applicable one here.  These do have to be nominated individually, since there were quite a few (a fraction of the total 251 episodes) that were critically-acclaimed and notable in their own right, see M*A*S*H .  Among the ones that I recall being a departure from the norm were "The Interview", "Point of View", "Dreams" and "Life Time", and of course the finale.  Mandsford (talk) 19:28, 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. 20:11, 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  21:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on." That kind of covers every episode of every TV show ever broadcast in America.  As I say, I'm glad that the entertainment wikis have made this type of article obsolete.  Mandsford (talk) 21:53, 16 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) 04:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Note: For some reason I'm listed as the first contributor to this article; however, I did not create it.  I merely moved it to a different title.  I'm not sure when or how the earlier history disappeared.  The sources which have been added to support the plot summary are sufficient to establish notability.  The "notability is not inherited" argument is irrelevant, because these sources (in particular the Wittebols and Reiss books) deal specifically with the episode, not merely with M*A*S*H as a whole.  If notability of this episode is the reason for this AfD, that reason has been answered by the sources provided.  However, the article still needs more real-world context, such as information about ratings and initial reception.  I suspect that some of this information is available in the sources cited and other print works; however, I don't have access to them to add the info myself.  I have added a sentence about the episode's theme, based on the Google Books version of the Wittebols book; but more real-world material is needed, per Manual of Style (writing about fiction).  However, the article's weakness in this regard is not, by itself, an argument for deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The single instance of a non=PLOT supporting citation doesn't really establish notability for this episode. It says 'this episode makes fun of Army Bureaucracy'. The entire series did that, in every episode. I don't find that sufficient for assertion of specific notability. Had it won awards or received major political reactions for that because of this particular episode, then it would, but simply to say something about this episode which can be said about the vast majority, if not every single episode, is not sufficient. ThuranX (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're inappropriately combining WP:PLOT and WP:NOTABILITY. WP:PLOT is not an argument for deletion, it's an argument for adding real-world context.  The section I added was only the beginning of what is needed; however, the sources provided establish notability, which is what is required to prevent deletion.  There is no guideline that says that "non-plot sources" are required; all that is required is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  The plot material in the various episode guides and books on M*A*S*H meet this criterion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:28, 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) 23:12, 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) 00:57, 17 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) 04:35, 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) 13:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As an example fo the proper amount of detail for an episode. Consdier merging it, but I am concerned that it might be w=unwieldy. If merged, keep the entire content,. The information about ratings and production details should be added, and can be added. It supplements the plot. DGG (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that the plot summaries are the right size, they are about the same length as those found in the two published books of summary and commentary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe all 24 episodes from season one are up for deletion List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), please everyone expresses an opinion at each of the 24, one way or the other. Some are still stubby and don't have a full plot summary in yet, but the vote is whether they have the right to exist to be expanded upon later. It is a lot faster to add an AFD tag then it is to write a full plot summary and garner the reviews. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * STOP CANVASSING. ThuranX (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These nominations are obviously related. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable. The nomination seems incoherent and no clear reason to deletion is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason, of course, is that there's no demonstration that this was "notable" as defined by WP:N. There is no rule that an episode of a television series is inherently (automatically) notable.  It might appear that way, but when Wikipedia was building, a lot of articles about TV episodes were contributed, because people write about what they're comfortable with.  Today, it looks like this will close in a "no consensus", but the day will come when the notable episodes of M*A*S*H -- those that won an award or that are cited when the series is discussed -- are separated from the ones less outstanding.  After having my memory jogged, I vaguely remember seeing this is in a rerun -- there's a scene where a flying helicopter is carrying away a desk -- but it's not outstanding.  Mandsford (talk) 14:02, 17 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. Too many good reasons to keep.  Dloh  cierekim  14:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thuran X has not one thing to be ashamed of. I've yet to see any reason to keep an article about a TV episode called "To Market, to Market" other than "It's M*A*S*H" Mandsford (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There are independent sources for the episode included in the article, so meets notability. Rlendog (talk) 03:04, 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) 16:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But at least two (the books by Wittebols and Reiss) do. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:30, 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.