Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County General Hospital (Chicago, Illinois) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

County General Hospital (Chicago, Illinois)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completely in-universe article with no hope of ever achieving real-world notability. Previous AfD contained many arguments about how ER is a notable show, which it is, but notability is not transferable. This fictional location is not notable in its own right and there is not enough real-world information in third-party reliable sources to justify this article's existence. Kbir1 (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The article is mostly unsourced and has, at best, one link to a source other than an episode of the series. Furthermore, a large proportion of the article is devoted to a list of characters from the show, which is already covered better in Cast of ER anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The Keep rationales from the last AfD were very weak. This article largely overlaps with Cast of ER, so if need be, I wouldn't mind seeing information incorporated there. The #Other Areas section is trivial in-universe cruft and doesn't need a new home. – sgeureka t•c 08:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is no evidence that the fictional hospital meets the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject and it seems that any article about it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. I don't see anything worth merging since it merely repeats information already present in other ER-related articles. The article barely provides 3 references, two of them from primary sources, to justify all the plot-related content that it has. Jfgslo (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.