Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional nurses

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. A Train^talk 09:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional nurses[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRUFT Ajf773 (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this nomination, Not discoursive, WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Whatever one might be able to say about other lists of fictional characters by occupation, we have 150 articles in Category:Fictional nurses. That category, lacking annotations, cannot tell us the originating work(s) for these characters, the time period of depiction or of publication, the creator(s), or any notes on how the occupation was portrayed. This list could. So I'm failing to see any argument to delete this instead of developing it further per WP:CLN and WP:LISTPURP. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC) [this is a keep, btw, for those of you who are expecting the usual !vote formatting... postdlf (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:LISTN for lack of sources that discuss this subject as a group. The appropriate Category:Fictional nurses, which already exists and handles the readers' navigational needs quite well. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think LISTN is relevant here (which by its own terms states it is only "one accepted" standard and that there are other criteria), but you want to ignore WP:NOTDUP? I find that position confusing, both here and in the other AFD you posted an identical comment. postdlf (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is WP:LISTCRUFT that a category already covers._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Postdif and WP:NOTDUPE. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "fictional nurses" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Spear, Hila J. (October–December 2010). "TV Nurses: Promoting a Positive Image of Nursing?". Journal of Christian Nursing. 27 (4). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: 318–321. doi:10.1097/CNJ.0b013e3181ed9f1a. ISSN 0743-2550. Retrieved 2017-09-26.
  The article notes:
  
  Recently, TNT, CBS, and HBO networks launched new TV shows that include strong nurse characters in leading roles. Comparing the role of the nurse played by Zena Bethune in the 1962 TV program, The Nurses, to today's HawthoRNe, Nurse Jackie, and Mercy's Nurse Veronica, at first glance it seems we've come a long way. Nurses are no longer portrayed as meek handmaidens and robotic physician helpers. However, although the production of programs that portray nurses in a more positive light is heartening, serious challenges remain. What is nursing facing from three of the newest additions of prime-time medical shows that include nurses as primary lead characters?
  ...
  Nurse Jackie is smart, assertive, knowledgeable, confident, and has excellent assessment skills. Unfortunately, the fact that she is assertive and intelligent is overshadowed by unethical and self-destructive behavior. She has a foul mouth, is promiscuous, is dependent on pain medications due to a back injury, routinely snorts cocaine, and falsifies documents to deem an accident victim an organ donor.
  ...
  Christine Hawthorne, RN, is the chief nurse officer (CNO) described by coworkers as “sassy, with plucky determination.” Due to the death of her husband, Hawthorne is a hard-working single parent of a teenage daughter. Hints of a possible romantic relationship with a physician were evident early in the series. After much hesitation, Hawthorne and the physician consummate the relationship.
  ...
  Veronica is the main RN character in the TV show Mercy. The online promo for Mercy states, “Some nurses give shots, Veronica calls them.” She is a nurse grappling to adjust to civilian life after a tour of duty in Iraq. Nurse Veronica and her husband are in counseling because of his infidelity. Although the husband is struggling with his moral failure, Veronica chooses not to disclose that she had an affair with a physician. Although her service to her country is inspiring, she does not exude a sense of confidence or professionalism.
2. Summers, Sandy; Summers, Harry Jacob (2014). Saving Lives: Why the Media's Portrayal of Nursing Puts Us All at Risk. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019933708X. Retrieved 2017-09-26.
  The book notes:
  
  From the 1920s until the end of World War II, nurses were generally seen as pragmatic, even heroic, particularly in war movies. The film A Farewell to Arms (1932) presented nurses as noble but relatively unskilled, with strict supervisors who enforced a moral code and deference to physicians. The Dr. Kildare films of the 1930s and 1940s focused on an idealized young physician. Nurse characters were either young love interests or formidable veterans. Kildare also had a crusty, brilliant diagnostician mentor—a forerunner to Greg House, perhaps. Hitchcock's Rear Window (1954) included a late example of what Kalisch and Kalisch describe as this era's "private nurse as detective" portrayals. In the film, the older "insurance company nurse" Stella helps the lovely lead characters unravel a mystery. Stella says she is not well educated, but she is autonomous, quick-witted, and tough.
  From the end of World War II until the 1960s, nurses tended to be portrayed as maternal helpers to essentially omniscient male physicians. The television show Ben Case (1961–1966), for instance, focused on an idealistic young physician not unlike Kildare. The show's nurse character Miss Wills was motherly and relatively unskilled. Marcus Welby (1969–1976) presented physicians as giving all meaningful care, including even the emotional "caring" that many nurses have traditionally regarded as their area. Kalisch and Kalisch refer to depictions of physicians doing everything as "Marcus Welby syndrome," a malady that remains endemic in Hollywood. According to communications scholar Joseph Turow, in the 1950s and 19660s the American Medical Association (AMA) asserted control over network television shows, actually vetting scripts. The AMA helpfully ensured that heroic physician characters generally made no errors and lived morally. Nurses were insignificant.
  A few products of the era did focus on nurses. A series of juvenile novels appearing from the 1940s to the 1960s featured Cherry Ames, a virtuous, adventurous, and bright young nurse who moved from job to job solving mysteries (Cherry Ames: Army Nurse was a typical title). Cherry Ames inspired many young women to become nurses. A television series called The Nurses (1962–1965) actually focused on two hospital nurses, a senior mentor and an inexperienced young nurse. The program even hired a nurse adviser to help the producers develop the show. But already some parents were discouraging talented, ambitious girls from entering nursing.
  Then came The Sixties. Sexual liberation and expanding work opportunities for women did not enhance public regard for nursing. As many ambitious women began to contemplate careers in medicine and other fields, the nursing image fled back to the poles of extreme female stereotypes. Naughty nurses became a staple of pornography and exploitation films by B-movie king Roger Corman and others. At times, the free-love nurse characters were balanced with senior battle-axes.
  Of course, the most notorious example was Nurse Ratched of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975). Milos Forman's film adaptation of Ken Kesey's anti-authoritarian 1963 novel featured the senior nurse as a sociopath who abuses her professional and institutional power over her patients. The film is deeply misogynistic—every female character is a stereotype—with Ratched as a horrific vision of society's repressed Mom.
  Robert Altman's antiwar film M*A*S*H (1970), based on Richard Hooker's 1968 novel, was less extreme. But it still presented senior US Army nurse "Host Lips" Houlihan and other nurses as battle-axes, sex objects, and/or handmaidens to cynical but gifted surgeons during the Korean War. …
  … China Beach (1988–1991) was set on a US military base in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Lead character Colleen McMurphy was a competent, fairly tough Army nurse, but she did not generally display much skill, and the show was mainly about nonhealth subjects. …
  …The Liftetime drama Strong Medicine (2000–2006) included hunky, articulate nurse midwife Peter Riggs, a progressive underling set against the female physician stars—probably a model for Dell from Private Practice. But the show's other nurses were mute handmaidens. The kooky sitcom Scrubs (2001–2010) featured tough nurse Carla Espinosa, who at times displayed real skill. …
3. Schultz, Jane E. (2004). Gallagher, Gary W. (ed.). Women at the Front: Hospital Workers in Civil War America. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press. p. 239. ISBN 080782867X. Retrieved 2017-09-26.
  The book notes:
  
  Missing from the triumphal narrative conceived by commemorative editors as well as the authors of monographs were workers' failures. Alice Fahs has observed that popular war literature skipped over the "bad" soldier; it also left little space for portraits of bad nurses. The drunken and disorderly Sairy Gamp of Charles Dickens's imagination has given way to the image of a fiercely loyal and sainted helpmate. Fictional nurses like Alcott's Tribulation Periwinkle and Nurse Dane in "The Brothers," and Rose Terry Cooke's Josephine Addison were idealizations of the diarists and memoirists who, in purporting to tell the history of nurses at war, fed the popular ideal with their fictions of triumphal accomplishment. Their narratives distorted personal conflict and shrouded the competitive urge for recognition in a midst of cooperation. Acts of resistance or disobedenience highlighted nurses' executive acumen, not their refusal to adopt military etiquette. Writers depicted themselves as enduring miserable conditions but said little about lapses in temper. Absent from the published record were those who could not adapt to camp life and left in anger, disgrace, or despair.
4. Hoffert, Sylvia D. (1989). Private Matters: American Attitudes Toward Childbearing and Infant Nurture in the Urban North, 1800–1860. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. p. 130. ISBN 0252015479. Retrieved 2017-09-26.
  The book notes:
  
  Fictional nurses displayed the same lack of discretion. Fanny Fern described Mrs. Jiff as spending some of her time "pouring into" the "ready ears" of another servant "whole histories of 'gen'lemen as wasn't gen'lemen, whose ladies she nursed,' and how 'nobody but herself knew how late they did come home when their wives were sick, though, to be sure, she'd scorn to tell of it.'"
  The domestic world of a young couple who had just witnessed the birth of their first child was in a state of flux while husband and wife adjusted to their new roles as parents. Into that world came the monthly nurse uniformly depicted by contemporary authors as annoying, presumptuous, and demanding. That she should have been portrayed in such a way is not surprising. At a superficial level she, like the stereotypical interfering mother-in-law, provided authors with a convenient source of conflict. There may have been, however, a more subtle reason why she was portrayed in this way. She also served as…
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow list of fictional nurses to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of those references explain anything to suggest the topic is noteworthy. Ajf773 (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- They show that "fictional nurses", i.e., the portrayal of nurses in fiction, has been discussed as a group, thus satisfying WP:LISTN. Not that I've seen even an argument that LISTN is relevant here for this particular index of articles, particularly given the agreement that "fictional nurse" is really the best way to define them (otherwise no one would support the category). postdlf (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sources offered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:CLN. Evidently a subject of serious commentary in both nursing and literary disciplines. In addition to Cunard's sources, here are "Nurses in Fiction" from the American Journal of Nursing (1974); American Nurses in Fiction (Garland, 1984); and Medical Women and Victorian Fiction (University of Missouri Press, 2005). --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Fictional nurses. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can anyone explain why we need a list article when a category is suitable enough for navigational purposes? Ajf773 (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, though I don't accept your premise. postdlf (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2017 (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.