Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sticky Wicket

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Happy No Consensus Day! One two three... 15:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky Wicket

[edit]
Sticky Wicket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article consists of an extended plot summary, and thin trivia section. It makes no assertions of notability. As with all others nominated, prodded for two years.Continuing my efforts to review a few MASH episodes per day. ThuranX (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Dlohcierekim 14:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY does not exist. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since no reliable sources establish this is an independently notable episode (no awards, etc...). Non-notable seinfeld episodes should likewise be deleted, not that this discussion is about those other, unconnected things.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since all M*A*S*H episodes have the same reason to stay, and apparently all were nominated separately at the same time, I'll just copy and paste my response. 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 08:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment. ThuranX (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Dream Focus. --Noosentaal·talk· 11:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep These episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites. This should have been discussed on the Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) instead of a mass deletion spree of 24 articles. WP:FICT, a policy to address episodes failed for the third time. WP:PLOT is being seriously attacked, so much so the page is protected for 2 weeks. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), and Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
  • Keep and improve. The sources found for other M*A*S*H episodes can and should be added to this one, establishing its notability by Wikipedia's definition. More real-world content is needed, of course, but that's an editorial issue, not a deletion rationale. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Reply The sources found have only in two instances spoken directly to the notability of the individual episode; in all other cases, the mere listing in a list of episodes shows only that it was an episode, not that it is possessed of a uniue notability. Notability is NOT INHERITED. ThuranX (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no requirement for "unique notability". All that is required is that a subject has received coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. What part of that requirement is not met by episode guides? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is absolutely a requirement for unique notability, otherwise every thing on the planet is equally notable, or we premise that notability must be inherited, which is not the case on Wikipedia. Each article must establish that each subject of an article possesses notability. A show is NOT notable just be being listed in TV Guide. All the 'sources' used come down to glorified TV Guides. out of all the episodes I nominated, all of those sources together presented unique assertions of notability for just two, in the form of awards received, not nominated for. Those two episodes I have withdrawn my nominations for, because they made assertions of a specific notability for that individual episode, instead of saying 'Someone, Somewhere, wrote about it'. That's not enough. ThuranX (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not "every thing on the planet", but every thing on the planet which has been written about in detail in a reliable source unaffiliated with the subject. I agree that a TV Guide listing is not sufficient; however, a listing in an episode guide is. (Incidentally, nominations for major awards are also significant, but that's beside the point.)
            I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of WP:GNG here; we'll see which interpretation is supported by the community. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one listens because you don't bother with the minimal work to see if even your own version of notability is satisfied. Instead of doing a search, you nominated for AFD. Instead of adding a tag, you jumped to an AFD ... and instead of testing an article at AFD you nominated every article in a season and started on a second season. I don't think I encountered anything more disruptive before. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close per ENOUGH ALREADY! Mass nominations of multiple articles about an award-winning series does not realistically allow time for the improvements the nominator suggests are needed. Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE for improvement if the presumption of notability is reasonable and commonsense. Wikipedia does not expect nor demand every article be perfect, even through various interpretations of ever-changing guideline. Mass nominations act to be disruptive of the project in forcing a ticking clock where none is supposed to exist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of MASH episodes. Take a look at List of Twin Peaks episodes for a good way of handling the ridiculous idea that there needs to be a separate article for individual episodes of the same series. This is MAYHEM. Jwg1994 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC) — Jwg1994 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Keep Evidently notable. Not that it matters, as this is not CSD, but being an episode of MASH is an assertion of notability as such episodes were highly rated, being watched by millions of people. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:25, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sticky_Wicket&oldid=1078925508"