Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional medical examiners


 * 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. AfD is not for clean up. Please improve and then we can renominate if you aren't able to find reliable secondary sources, etc. Missvain (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

List of fictional medical examiners

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Excessive uncited pop culture trivia in the form of an indiscriminate list. The article doesn't explain how fictional medical examiners have had a cultural impact, and I feel it isn't encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep The nomination provides no specifics or evidence. Here's an example of coverage per WP:LISTN from The Lancet. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , The discussion of forensic pathology in fiction is not the same as a list of fictional practitioners. The article you linked mentions very few of the characters by name, it tends to focus on the discussion of the practice as shown in the shows, not of the fictional characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Lancet is an excellent source but it's not the only one. Finding more clues is just a matter of looking.  Looking for such evidence is the key skill of the investigator.  For example, see The Suspicious Figure of the Female Forensic Pathologist Investigator in Crime Fiction.  "it is through her ability to perform the procedures of her job ... that clues are located, the narrative of events reconstructed, and the criminal identified and apprehended."  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This WP:AfD reminds me quite a bit of 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. The article linked by provides a good example of how to write something about medical examiners in fiction—how they are depicted, trends in popularity over time, implications for the public's perception of the profession, and so on—and shows that we could do the same thing. 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) 18:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep As far as I understand a list is justified on Wikipedia either as a sensible grouping of topics that are treated somewhere on Wikipedia (or have secondary sources), or because the topic, in this case fictional medical examiners, itself is notable. I feel the nomination does not make clear on both points why this should not be the case here. I think that "I feel it isn't encyclopedic" does not carry any weight as long as it is not supported by more arguments. Sure, this list can be improved, e.g. by citations (though by its nature, the entries themselves already give primary sourcing), but that is not a reason for deletion.
 * For the first point, "fictional medical examiners" is clearly delineated, and as there are many blue links in the list, it is something that does appear on Wikipedia and is therefore not trivial.
 * For the second, the fact that eight such lists were nominated within minutes makes it highly doubtful that the nominator did a proper WP:BEFORE search, which is part of the normal AfD process. As found by Andrew Davidson, the topic itself seems to be notable, and the list should be kept on that grounds also.
 * As for changing this from a list into an article, I have no particular aversion against that, but in my opinion the list itself also has its uses. In think the comparison between Climate of London and list of rainy days in London is not quite accurate, because if properly used this list is not indicriminate. We don't have entries about single rainy days in London because they are not noteable. We do have e.g. a List of European windstorms, because many of them (and the topic itself) are notable. Daranios (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep while The Lancet article is just one, 1) it's hard to find a higher quality reliable source; The Lancet is one of the top 5 medical journals worldwide, and 2) we don't need multiple RS to demonstrate that a categorization is encyclopedic--that is, that "fictional medical examiners" are covered as an intersection in reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unreferenced and I don't see any source here. Contains plenty of non-notable characters or characters from non-notable works, too inclusive. Category is enough, this is just fancruft list of trivia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTDUPE, the existence of the category demonstrates the validity of the equivalent list. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 8 May 2021 (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.