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. There seems to be a clear consensus to keep this article. Further discussion on the scope (who gets included?) and style (should this remain a list or be converted to more of a prose article) is would be useful (and perhaps is even needed) but that can and should happen on the article talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional nurses[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Excessive uncited pop culture trivia in the form of an indiscriminate list. The article doesn't explain how fictional nurses have had a cultural impact, and I feel it isn't encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN as complement to Category:Fictional nurses. No need for "cultural impact" to be demonstrated, and we are listing article subjects by what they are; there are clearly plenty of notable examples. Note the nom copy and pasted the same boilerplate into at least eight separate nominations, all made at the same time. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is a cookie-cutter driveby with no specifics. Its basis is the argument to avoid of WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. And it utterly fails to address the fact that this has been at AfD before when the result was a clear keep. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Per Nurse Ratched, "The best thing we can do is go on with our daily routine." Andrew🐉(talk) 18:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for deletion because it's entirely unsourced and has entries I feel are trivial, and doesn't explain how the subject of fictional nurses is notable, which seem like specifics to me. The last AFD for this was in 2017, I don't think creating a discussion about an article that was previously nom'd four years ago is disruptive. The article strikes me as WP:LISTCRUFT, and I don't think that having a category for fictional nurses means there needs to be a list of fictional nurses. Waxworker (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTCRUFT is neither policy nor guideline – that's just like, your opinion, man. And, if we have a category then that's good evidence that a list is sensible too – see WP:CLN which does have official status. This clueless, cookie-cutter spasm is like the recent spree of Coin945 and the consensus seems to be that they are disruptive. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating eight articles that you don't agree with is not nearly the same as 72 in a matter of three hours. I made the same points on several of the articles I've nominated, but I stand by my statements; I feel like you're ignoring my arguments by virtue of you not agreeing with them. I think you're out of line with accusations of disruptive behaviour and "clueless, cookie-cutter spasm" nominations, and I think it's best to discuss the nomination at hand. I would have opted for a batch deletion, but I felt that individual discussions would be more productive, especially as they're different subjects. Waxworker (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These nominations were done at a rate of more than one a minute. And notice that the common courtesy of notifying the page's creator was not done. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that nominating eight articles in a short span is better than 72, because discussing them is a lot of work but still somewhat manageable. The fact that the nominations have been done within minutes, however, suggests to me that no WP:BEFORE search has been done, and that's a step that should be done in the process. Nominating for deletion is easy, finding sources can be hard work. I don't think re-nomination after four years is disruptive. But I think pushing the work of WP:BEFORE on others, or not discussing why the consensus of the last discussion should no longer apply is not helpful for finding the best decision for Wikipedia.

Also, the fact that there's a category is no reason not to have a list, too. Daranios (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This WP:AfD reminds me quite a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, where the outcome was converting a list article that looked like this into a prose article that looked like this. Listing every time concept X appears in a work of fiction is something TV Tropes does; we should strive to write something about concept X in fiction, not just enumerate examples. This applies outside of fiction too, of course—it is the difference between writing the article Climate of London and creating the article list of rainy days in London. I believe the sources discussed in the previous AfD nomination demonstrate that we can write a prose article about this. I would be in favour of converting this list article to a prose article as was done with Eco-terrorism in fiction, although unlike in that case it we would obviously need to change the title as well here to not be called "list of [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I nominated this for deletion the first time. My position on this is that if the article is going to be kept, there is a provision that only notable entries, with articles, are included in the list. Ajf773 (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, for example, Ajf773 would exclude Margaret "Hot Lips" Houlihan. That's absurd and, in any case, making rules of this sort is not the purpose of AfD. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a character's unsourced and doesn't have an article, it doesn't seem controversial to me to remove it. What does seem controversial is leaving an edit summary of 'kiss my ass' when someone disagrees with you. Waxworker (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced ≠ unsourceable. Clearly Houlihan's inclusion would be verifiable and also strange to omit, and I agree with Andrew that inclusion is for resolution at the article (no comment on conduct issues raised by Waxworker of which I have no knowledge). postdlf (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Write the article then. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's all stay civil and concentrate on arguments, not persons.

No specific editor should required to write anything. A deletion discussion is not the place to call for conditions, or discuss how to improve it - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The question is if it can be improved to the point of making sense. It seems to me all the arguments are about the current state of the article. But, as Postdlf state, Wikipedia policy requires the existance of sources, not their presence in the article. For Houlihan as an example, just have a look at a search in general, or this source in particular. Daranios (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First I think Postdlf has the right of it: This is a clearly delineated subject, and the list contains many blue link to either whole articles or article sections. So on either count the topic is treated often enough on Wikipedia to justify the list. Secondly I have the strong impression that neither a proper WP:BEFORE search has been done, and the previous deletion discussion has not be taken into account. There a number of secondary sources have been listed, demonstrating that the topic itself is notable, which means according to WP:LISTN that the existence of a list is justified on that grounds also. And lastly, the criticism mostly seems to be targeted at the curent state of the article, which is not really relevant for a decision about deletion. Daranios (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My problem here is that such lists should risk being a collection of all information. We don't have a list of all nurses, just list of notable real-life nurses, right? What about fictional? If this list was to be limited only to notable fictional nurses, that's one thing, but if not, where do we draw a line? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: While this may be a problem elsewhere, I think this list has solved it without any specific regulations: It currently contains only fictional nurses that have blue links, i.e. have their own article or redirect to section of an article on Wikipedia. If there should be the need for formalizing something for the future, that's not a question for an AfD but the list's talk page. Or, if a general need is felt, instigate the creation of a guideline. Daranios (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found in the first AfD, which demonstrate that they should have been reviewed before a new AfD was started. Jclemens (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I came across this discussion and saw that the list still had the AFD template. It appears that Wareon restored the template due to this discussion's closing editor being a sock that is now blocked. Therefore I reverted the closing, though I am not sure if this discussion needs to be relisted or restored elsewhere in some sense. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:08, 4 May 2021 (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.