Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nurse stereotypes (2nd nomination)
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 keep. No clear consensus to delete. Strong arguments to keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Nurse stereotypes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced synthesis. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because it has loads of notability. It just needs to be properly ref'd. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The article, as nominated, contained an excellent reference, and so the nomination is blatantly false. Warden (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: as completely unencyclopedic and a great reason to expand WP:NOT. We really don't need to make Wikipedia a list of Mulsim stereotypes, Tough-guy stereotypes, left-handed dwarf-wanking stereotypes, etc. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps these articles don't exist because they don't meet WP:GNG, while this one does. Each topic needs to be judged individually, not based on others or what Wikipedia does not have. What you are saying here is that a policy favoring deletion should exist, not that one does already. This is all just a personal point of view. See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC before you judge an article as that. Tatterfly (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm talking about common sense here - not what the rules say. This
iswas an encyclopedia. Toddst1 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Don't be a hater. WP:idontlikeit is not a valid reason to destroy other people's work. Dream Focus 00:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy there big fella. Big leap between common sense and hater. And what's with the agression? Toddst1 (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be a hater. WP:idontlikeit is not a valid reason to destroy other people's work. Dream Focus 00:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm talking about common sense here - not what the rules say. This
- Perhaps these articles don't exist because they don't meet WP:GNG, while this one does. Each topic needs to be judged individually, not based on others or what Wikipedia does not have. What you are saying here is that a policy favoring deletion should exist, not that one does already. This is all just a personal point of view. See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC before you judge an article as that. Tatterfly (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; or Merge: can it be merged into the Stereotype article? Is there a stereotype article? Otherwise, I generally have to agree with Toddst1 above. GenQuest (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Too short to stand alone, and would benefit from being discussed in context. JFW | T@lk 22:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been larger in the past. I have started a rewrite which is still in progress and so the article is still being developed back to its previous size. There are many substantial sources including entire books such as Bedside seductions: nursing and the Victorian imagination and so there is no obstacle to developing this topic up to FA size. Warden (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets general notability guidelines. As the list of references shows, this topic has been covered in multiple sources that focus on this topic itself. That alone makes it notable enough for a standalone article. Tatterfly (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep St. Joseph Gazette - Nov 18, 1986 Nurses Urged To Upgrade Their Image] Just click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, and look through all the results. It sounded stupid to me at first, but I then took the time to look through the news and do some reading. There is ample coverage for this, it a real thing. Dream Focus 15:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have not examined all of the available sources, but what I've read from Darbyshire in Contexts of Nursing looks like a pretty solid academic discussion of the issue at hand. He cites some sources that might be helpful to build up this article with, as well. I would have titled the article "Public image of nurses" or something similar, but I think this title works well enough. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge To Nursing. This doesn't need an article by itself and most of the information presented here is trivial at best. Also, someone take down that picture in the article, or find use for it, because as it stands now will not do. (Not even a real nurse) The Undead Never Die (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. But I think there is a better name, just not sure what. Szzuk (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. References are solid. Marokwitz (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2011 (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.