Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowboy (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. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, if necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Cowboy (M*A*S*H)

Cowboy (M*A*S*H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article has an overlong plot unsupported by real world info or notability; a trivia section, and an infobox. The plot summary in the LoE is redundant to what's here. ThuranX (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - The article is a copyvio from [1]. I tagged it for speedy deletion. OlYeller^Talktome 02:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If only. that's a mirror of us. ThuranX (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Whoops. Ma bad. OlYeller^Talktome 18:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a copyvio too. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

<<ec>>Speedy declined. http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2262054 got its content from WIkipedia. Look in the upper right hand corner. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy 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. Kudos to the rescuers. Dlohcierekim 13:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This article and those like it are essential to coverage of the subject M*A*S*H (TV series) as a sub topic. In other words, a paper encyclopedia, had it the room or interest to do so, would include these sub-articles as part of an article on M*A*S*H*. Wikipedia:NOTINHERETED says "notability of a parent entity or topic . . . does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case. . . " Those favoring deletion would be correct if all there was to the notability of these articles was a few remarks in episode guides, but the main subject is sufficiently notable to require coverage of individual episodes. So "no assertion of notability" and "episodes aren't individually notable" are not really relevant, nor is not plot a valid argument in the cases of this article and those like it. Those arguing to delete, with all due respect, have not made a convincing argument that these articles are not essential to full coverage. Those arguing for merge are on firmer ground. However, the individual article titles are valid and valuable for redirects to the List, so deletion again would be unhelpful. Also, such mergers (and even if there is little value in merging content, the additional sourcing and the preservation of the edit summaries is something to consider) would serve no constructive purpose. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:02, 22 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. The scrape of the Wikipedia article is the violation, not the other way around. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Article has had tags for two years asking for such to no avail. ThuranX (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:27, 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)

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) 03:45, 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) 03:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has been superseded by WIKIPEDIA:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd be wrong. A popular cheap rejoinder to a serious point isn't superseding anything. The point stands. ZBecause you can find a problem in something else does not jsutify ignoring a problem here. ThuranX (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly, AFD a few Seinfeld episodes too, to show me that this isn't recentism, and is a deeper policy issue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay guys both please be civil. ThuranX is nominating the articles, not deciding whether or not they should be kept, and he should be thanked for doing all of this work, not attacked for it. Mr. Norton that last comment is inappropriate, he's already working, you nominate the Seinfeld junk and let him finish this. Drawn Some (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well you are already showing you bias by calling it "Seinfeld junk", without ever contributing to the articles there at Seinfeld. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC)That's not the project I'm working on, and I'm not your monkey. Go Nom it yourself. I fail to see how noting that articles tagged for for GNG for 2 years, consisting of only plots and trivia, should be deleted, has anything to do with recentisms at all. It happened to be a mess I stumbled upon and decided to clean up. That's it. ThuranX (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not your monkey" comments like this are conductive to comprimise and consensus. Ikip (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am rather troubled when editors call other editor good faith contributions "crap". Does this really help come to a consensus? Just like cruft, "this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• RedirectDelete to appropriate M*A*S*H* episode list. Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but an overly long plot summary and unsourced 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. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply The title represents a highly improbable search term, redirecting seems irrelevant. ThuranX (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes, and Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
• 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. Listed in TV guide as a classic episode.[2]Ikip (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Closing nominator please note since this nomination there have been signifigant additions and improvements to the article.[3] Ikip (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Production trivia, plot summary, and a TV Guide sound bite do not an article make. Citing the plot over and over doesn't rectify that it still comprises 77% of the prose in the article. Use cites and sound bite in LOE, the delete. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:12, 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.T Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:07, 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. Dream Focus 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have explained, repeatedly, in various places, my rationale for individual nomination. Please look for it, and read it. There should be one at WP:TV, and in a few of these AfDs. Since you're editing all of them, you either have or will soon see it, please read it and stop asserting that my intentions were in Bad faith. ThuranX (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly didn't think it was bad faith. I just thought you didn't think of doing it the other way. Don't assume everyone is out to get you. It would've been great to have them all in one place, since everyone participating is posting the same stuff in all those places anyway. Dream Focus 00:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The people arguing to keep have not demonstrated notability and in general are skirting around or ignoring the notability question. This page has a number of sources given but they are hardly reliable and independent (fandango appears to be run by comcast, and thus has an interest in promoting television, and is hardly independent, classicsitcoms.com is a self-published site run by Vince Waldron--these are barely acceptable, and i think could be argued unacceptable, for sources, and are definitely not adequate for arguing notability). "Watching M*A*S*H, Watching America" does provide a couple paragraphs of this episode but it is nothing more than a plot summary--there is absolutely no context of how the episode relates in any way to anything else, which, in my opinion, is a key aspect of notability--and thats it, very scant coverage for a few-hundred-page long book dedicated in detail to the series. Cazort (talk) 21:55, 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) 04:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:27, 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) 13:48, 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) 05:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • CommentThe sources Josiah mentions are multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, in an attempt to put sources on the page. They do not alter my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability. ThuranX (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Notability on Wikipedia is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It doesn't say "except episode guides". WP:PLOT is an argument for improving balance of content, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:36, 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) 23:13, 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) 01:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep . 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 remark again that it is so much easier to nominate for deletion that to look for sources. One person says one sentence, and a dozen people have to scramble. I'm not sure these should have been nomin as a group some like this one have indications of outside recognition of notability, and thus are much more certain keeps. I don't fault doing them individually--I do fault doing them all at the same time. DGG (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Plenty of sources = evidently notable, as one would expect. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:49, 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) 02:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to the list of episodes for that series. All the substantive content fails WP:PLOT. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• WP:PLOT does not have consensus support and so is not an accepted policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:07, 22 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). Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 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.