Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Hate a Mystery

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Hate a Mystery

Article consists of a long plot summary, a trivia section, and an infobox. Nowhere is an assertion of notability made, no sources provided, except for an WP:OR violation. ThuranX (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
- 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. The nominator now claims that the sources added in this desperate, last minute rescue effort are inadequate. Who knows what more will turn up? 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 13:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. 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) 04:13, 15 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) 04:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am 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) 15:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 some unsourced trivia tidbits probably copied from IMDB. Seriously y'all...GROUP NOM! 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) 04:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments of Richard...there is no WP:DEADLINE Recent additions verify notability. There is little basis to have this article removed from wikipedia, WP:FICT has failed to become a guideline three times, and WP:PLOT is currently under an intense edit war. Ikip (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 there is no WP:DEADLINE this should have been discussed on List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) first. Ikip (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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) 18:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.} 20:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the episode list. Query, why are these all separate discussions anyways? 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:11, 16 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) 04:14, 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) 04:30, 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) 05:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe sources referred to above are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, but they do not support nor present any actual assertions of notability. However, my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. ThuranX (talk) 14:02, 16 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]
Keep Lots of sources, lots of notability, not much WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks fine to me. Referenced, notable. — Jake Wartenberg 16:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of episodes in the series until and unless there is something more than a plot summary to go in. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 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.