Select Page

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Showtime (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 no consensus. One two three... 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Showtime (M*A*S*H)

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

As with Ceasefire, Article is completely redundant to the already existing Episode list. As with all others nominated, prodded for two years. ThuranX (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one is tricky, as searching for sources yields lots of hits for the network Showtime. Still, my search turned up nothing showing notability. I suppose I could still be proven wrong if someone comes up with sources, but I think there's a very slim chance of this happening. Cazort (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Personally I don't think any series merits pages for individual episodes, but there are many such series documented on Wikipedia. However, there are pages for (seemingly) every MASH episode. So it seems to me that the default action would be keep, unless someone can make an argument for introducing a red link into an otherwise blue list of episodes. Hairhorn (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument to keep because "other similar pages exist" is not valid, especially since we have been deleting episodes, some of which are closer to being notable than this one, and there has been a clear consensus that they are not notable. If the episode is not notable, it needs to be deleted. If you want to keep it because you believe it is notable, you need to show us that it is notable. Cazort (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, lets talk about policy, WP:FICT, a proposed guideline addressing episodes, has failed 3 times. WP:PLOT just had a !vote in which a majority of people wanted it to be deleted. So there is little policy reasons to delete this article, especially considering the new references provided. Ikip (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that thees guidelines have not reached a consensus. Because there is great controversy I thinking primarily of the general notability guideline: WP:N, significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject--which excludes the episode itself as well as any promotional material tied to the industry (i.e. a site run by comcast). Cazort (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply the list is not all blue. Examine all the episode lists by season, and you'll see plenty of gaps. Since, as stated above, I'm reviewing a few at a time, eventually there will be plenty more episodes removed than kept, we can turn the lists to black, and thus clean up the entire situation. ThuranX (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh hell, if there are already gaps, knock yourself out. My only concern was that deletes be done with the series as a whole in mind, not strictly on a case-by-case basis for each episode. Hairhorn (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to keep Dlohcierekim 14:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds are you arguing to expand this article? You say to "add real world context and criticism"--from where? You need to provide sources. Otherwise it would be original research. And if there are similar pages on non-notable episodes of other TV shows, they need to be deleted too...we need to discuss based on notability, not on what other pages do or don't exist because wikipedia is full of pages that exist that shouldn't and pages that don't exist that should. Cazort (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided numerous sources. These sources are just not good enough for some editors.Ikip (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am troubled with editors who 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) 15:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, sensing the loss of the rationale battle, you're resorting to bashing people with the WP:CIVIL mallet? Honestly now, think about what ThuranX is actually saying, rather than just acting reactionary in the face of certain combinations of little black squiggles. Badger Drink (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE:"I have been doing a fairly detailed search for each of these episodes"
What about my new contributions?[1] I added 5 references to this article on 17:26, 15 May 2009, four hours before you posted this.
RE:"The editors arguing to keep have provided no new sources "
Please strike this, as it is therefore false.
I am reminded of the nominator for deletion who recently felt 36 references was not enough to keep an article. Ikip (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:N. Significant coverage in reliable independent sources makes something notable, not numbers of viewers. Cazort (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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) 04:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) 05:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. However, my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. ThuranX (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is your definition of notability? It seems like you have a Guinness World Records concept of notability. It has to be be the longest running episode, or the most watched episode, instead of the Wikipedia definition. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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) 22:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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) 23:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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) 01:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, someone says 'this show is popular, let's see if an episode guide would sell.' and they write up a list of episodes, with some basic facts about each. They aren't making assertions about the notability of individual episodes, but about a percieved popularity of the show itself. Within that book they may present facts which demonstrate notability for SOME episodes, like the one that got a writing award, and the other which got an editing award. But simply printing out a list of episodes isn't the same as asserting each episode is notable unto itself, which is what is required. You keep making assertions which seem to boil down to 'notability for the series is inherited by each episode.' That's NOT how NOTE works. ThuranX (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • And that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that these episode articles should be kept merely because M*A*S*H is notable. It's possible for a television series to be notable without its episodes having received critical attention. However, an episode guide is a perfectly acceptable example of a reliable source, independent of the subject, and as such the episodes of any television series about which an episode guide has been published are themselves notable. This isn't inheritance; it's focus. Claiming that episode guides can't establish notability for episodes is like claiming that bird guides can't establish notability for a species of bird.
                "Notable" is a broader criterion than "exceptional". We agree that exceptional episodes deserve articles; however, you are in error when you assert that exceptionality is required. All that is required is that an episode has been covered in reliable sources independent of the subject. And episode guides qualify. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, it is exactly what you are saying, over and over: "Because there is an episode guide, all episodes are notable." That's ridiculous. Because there is an episode guide, there can be made an argument, a good one that I'd support ,,that the show is probably notable. However, in order to establish that the episode is notable, there must be something specifically notable about that particular episode. Episode 57 is not notable because episode 3 was notable, and that's as it should be. An episode must have something specific to it which asserts notability, otherwise, every single episode of every show ever broadcast anywhere is notable. Each episode article needs to show what makes that episode special, notable. Most of these do not. I've been quite reasonable about this, withdrawing two articles already once some actual notability was established. I fail to see how you remain completely obtuse about my point here. ThuranX (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. You are treating "notable" as if it means "exceptional" or "special". All that it means is that someone has noted it. That's what an episode guide does— it notes episodes. I'm not talking about the TV Guide link, which I agree is not helpful in establishing notability. (I'm unsure about the classicsitcoms.com and digitallyobsessed.com links — I don't know whether those are reliable sources or not.) I'm talking about the printed books by Wittebols and Reiss. Not every television series has had episode guides published about it. For those series, it is not reasonable to expect that every episode should have its own article. However, if an independent source has published a guide to the episodes of a series, that guide is evidence of notability for those episodes.
                    Neither of us is getting anywhere in this discussion. Let's just agree to disagree, and see what the community as a whole says. OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Notable DOES mean exceptional or special. It means WORTHY of making note of it. Not every episode is worthy of making a note of it. When you decide to list all episodes, you are not making any examination of their notability, you're making a holistic list. That's different. Wikipedia is NOT an episode guide. It is not hard to understand this: An Episode Guide shows that the SERIES is notable, not all the episodes, because it makes no distinctions between articles. Episode Guides present a PLOT, and maybe a list of guest stars, and sometimes trivia. Apparently all 6 of those sources only revealed THREE bits of potentially notable material. One failed award nomination and two actual winnings of awards. And as I must repeat all over AfD, I already withdrew those two wins. I am asking for individual demonstrations of notability. I got two. Get me a few more, and most of these articles could stay. ThuranX (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you nominate the ones that are exceptional by your own standards? That is why I wrote that you have a bias against either this show, or older TV shows. You said that award nominated and award winning episodes are notable by your standards, yet you nominated them also. Every episode was nominated in season one, and you started season two. There doesn't appear to be any standard applied at all, it gives the appearance of disruption. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I started where I saw the problem, then worked forward to season two, accidentally got one of those, but saw it suffered the same problems, so I didn't withdraw it; then I started working back to the front of season one again. that's all there is to it. No article in there discussed awards when I read it. All those later found to have awards and citation supporting were withdrawn. There's no favoritism, my standard was simple - if an article made no supported claim to individual non-inherited notability, or lacked real world content that could reasonably be tagged with citation requests, I nom'd it. My actions were not disruptive; after all, it's not like I went around refactoring and redacting comments to make other editors look foolish or ignorant. ThuranX (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the concept of "due diligence" before you nominate? Have you used The Google before? I can show you how to use it if you need help. You do understand that there are tags to resolve the problems you found, right? What made you choose MASH from the hundreds of TV show series articles that have identical structure? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you are correct there is no need for me to make you look "foolish or ignorant". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on sources. classicsitcoms.com is self-published (by Vince Waldron), and is not acceptable as a source. The other sources are better. But I don't see significant coverage:
While most of the given sources only give a single paragraph, it's not the length but the nature of the content that matters to me. The given sources simply reference a plot summary. There is no discussion of cultural context of the episode, there is no content that relates the episode to anything beyond the show. I think the key issue here should be: are there enough sources to write an encyclopedic article? I.e. something that is more than just a plot summary, that ties the article into a web of knowledge? That's what I'm failing to see and why I continue to argue for deletion of most of these episodes. I think there are relatively few notable episodes of many TV shows. An example of what I'm looking for is mentions in places like the Journal of Popular Culture, relating this to other issues, as in this article's [2] mention of the final episode (which is more likely to be notable anyway), I certainly wouldn't argue to delete that one, but there are mentions of other episodes (and, MUCH more interesting to me, themes and issues): [3], [4] relating to M*A*S*H in that journal. I'm not a "deletionist", if you check my record you'll see that I tend to fall pretty solidly on the "keep" end of things most of the time. The issue here is that I think wikipedia is more than an indiscriminate repository of information. I think articles need to be woven into a web of knowledge. Dozens of articles with plot summaries and nothing else, even when adequately sourced, are in my opinion, entirely unencyclopedic, redundant to the rest of the web, and uninteresting. I would rather see M*A*S*H articles discussing the relevance of the series to the real world, tying it in with other articles beyond just the M*A*S*H ones. Cazort (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) 02:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the coverage is significant? I pointed out above that the sources give little more than a brief plot summary. Cazort (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A plot summary may not provide a lot of meat for analysis in an article (other than the article's plot summary), but it is signficant coverage in its own right and that multiple independent sources choose to take the trouble to provide a plot summary of a particular episode is an indication of the episode's notability. Rlendog (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed earlier, your links are to exceptional shows. If we used the exceptional litmus test we would have just the TV Guide 100 top episodes. Reference works go beyond top 100 lists, and Wikipedia has its own standard for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then the standard is too low. And this episode does nothing to meet Wikipedia's already-low standard. The arguments I've seen for inclusion range from the OCD "avoid redlinks" to the good ol' "notability is inherited" fallacy. If someone needs plot summaries for TV episodes, there's plenty of other Wikis out there that are better-suited for this sort of excruciating in-universe minutae.Badger Drink (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.