Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional nurses (2nd nomination)

List of fictional nurses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(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]

• 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]