Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yankee Doodle Doctor


 * 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; 03:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yankee Doodle Doctor

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

With both an overview, and a detailed story, article suffers a serious PLOT vio, as well as a TRIVIA problem, and a sad dearth of sources. ThuranX (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * '''Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  02:59, 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. 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  13:39, 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) 03:17, 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) 04:06, 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) 03:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete via Redirect to appropriate M*A*S*H* season episode list. Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but an overly long plot summary and an unsourced trivia tidbit probably copied from IMDB. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles, redirecting per norm. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:27, 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)


 * 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  16:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't inherited. Drawn Some (talk) 16:38, 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) 17:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:18, 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. 20:32, 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) 04:35, 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) 07:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: notability is established by the cited sources, which deal specifically with this episode rather than generally with the series. I've added a short section on themes and reception, based on the Wittebols book; more is needed per WP:WAF, but an imbalance between plot and real-world content is not by itself a deletion argument. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This particular article did get sources which go beyond supporting the bloviated plot summaries, but I don't find that they actually rise to establishing notability. What little is said can easily be incorporated into the LoE. ThuranX (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as for the overview, articles need a lede--its part of the basic style & the overview could be merged there. Additional information should be added, but inbalance is an editing question, and the relative amount can vary. In going through these, one by one, I note two three things: 1. I do not think the nomination has been preceded by any attempt to look for sources.  2. I don't even see any evidence its taken the individual article characteristics into account.  3. This many at a time is abusive. if I were not previously involved in these discussions, and came across them for the first time, i would have serious doubts that this is a good way to handle them. DGG (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are independent sources about the episode available for the article, so meets notability. Rlendog (talk) 18:34, 18 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.