Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rampart General Hospital

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 merge to Emergency!. No prejudice against keeping if independent notability can be shown. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rampart General Hospital[edit]

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

Delete this fictional location that fails the WP:GNG with a lack of multiple, independent WP:RS. WossOccurring (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 00:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination seems to be part of a deletion spree being made hastily as a spinoff of another AFD. This seems improper as, by nominating numerous similar articles together, but not as a group, the action tends to overload our system. The proper deletion process is not being followed - no discussion at the article, no effort to find sources, no effort to consider alternatives to deletion. Good sources for this topic do exist and I have added one to the article but AFD is not cleanup and our volunteer good will and efforts should not be abused in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Emergency!. There's not enough material here to justify a separate article, and the fictional hospital has no independent notability. Colonel Warden's wikilawyering on behalf of these articles is beside the point; if someone says, "well, there's all these other articles," it's only to be expected that they are going to be looked over. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Emergency!. Fails notability on its own due to a lack of multiple reliable and independentn sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Emergency!. Fictional hospitals don't need their own articles. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2010 (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.