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, consider merging. Arguments are fairly unanimous that this content is not worthy of deletion - beyond that, it's fairly evenly divided between keeping it as a separate article and merging it to Scrubs (TV series). I'd suggest that discussions are undertaken on the talk page to determine if and how this should be merged; but as far as this AfD discussion goes the content is clearly being kept in some form. ~ mazca ^talk 01:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Hospital (Scrubs)[edit]

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

A non-notable location in a TV programme. There is already a section in the parent article (here) that any notable content, if it exists, can be added into. WossOccurring (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 00:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the location of a notable multi-season television show. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the WP:PRECEDENT for that? Without a WP:WAX violation, there are not articles for Monica's apartment, Hilda and Zelda's house or even Central Perk. The plain fact is that Sacred Heart Hospital does not pass the WP:GNG. WossOccurring (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the former ""North Hollywood Medical Center" is the location.. Sacred heart hospital never existed there but in the imagination of the writers.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge the entire content. It is all mergeable, for it meets WP:V--the work itself is a RS for factual information of plot and setting. Content of an article does not have to be notable -- if it were, ever sentence in Wikipedia would be a separate article. A delete request implies that not even a redirect is appropriate, and I would like to know why the nom. thinks that would be wrong. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete it seems to me that when one types in sacred heart hospital and there are REAL sacred heart hospitals you should not be brought to an article about a fictionial hospital from a tv show. its fine to mention this "hospital" in the Scrubs article.. but a seperate page is not only unnecessary but confusing.. for instance .. I accidently stumbled on it by typing teaching hospitals or some such in the search box and finding it.. also if one were to skip through to the overview section.. one could assume they were reading about a real hospital or one with a reality tv show. This article should be deleted or at the very least put on a disambiguation page. I understand no articles for any sacred heart hospitals are currently in wikipidia(although a listing of them is).. so someone make a stub for one.. make it the main and put this on the disambiguation page or delete it outright. wikipedia should not really be a place for fictional places and things.. an article about a tv show should be acceptable as its a show people watch.. having one about about a fake hospital in fake tv show is just silly, confusing and uneccessary and a slippery slope. also.. as I above mentioned it IS NOT the location of the tv show.. it is NOT a real sacred heart hospital.. from the articles own wiki "the former North Hollywood Medical Center, a real decommissioned hospital at 12629 Riverside Drive in North Hollywood, Los Angeles, California. For the ninth series of Scrubs, the hospital will move to Culver Studios." .. so this maybe could be mentioned on the "North Hollywood Medical Center" article in a paragraph about after its closing...where it actually already is mentioned -Tracer9999 (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jclemens' and DGG's arguements. Cyclonius (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable. Here's a source for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. Also Tracer999's arguments seem more of a rant about wikipedia and real hospitals rather than having any real reasons for deletion--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Scrubs (TV series) The effect is simply to take a not-that-short paragraph and reduce it to a sentence. I don't think there's much of a need for a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jclemens' and DGG's arguements. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per Wossoccurring and Tracer9999. Most of the article relates to Scrubs and can be included there. Part is about the real location used for filming other shows so not about the title. As Woss says we do not have articles named after other fictional venues. Sussexonian (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woss is quite mistaken as every example that he gives is a blue link. We have many thousands of articles upon fictional places such as Camelot, 221B Baker Street, Hogwarts, etc. The article in question is in the Category:Fictional hospitals which contains many such places. So, your premise is quite counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at Category:Fictional hospitals, and frankly I'm inclined to nominate most entries in it. Most of them are short sections from articles on the series in which they appear, and could just as well be merged back into the parent article. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is not deletion. The distribution of material between parent articles and their children is just a matter of editing discretion, providing the most convenient navigation and easy reading for our readership. Deletion is different matter, being only for material without any merit or use at all. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement of the process is belied by precedent. It happens often enough that an article is merged into another as the conclusion of a deletion discussion. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The processes are, however, quite different. Deletion involves use of a restricted function which completely removes content and its edit history. Merger is just normal editing for which no special process is required, except care to acknowledge the rights and contributions of the original editors per our licence. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Scrubs (TV series). Not that notable on its own, but potentially useful information in the main article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Merge - which is different from both delete and keep, but possible delete because nobody's going to search for a common hospital name and put scrubs in parenthesis on the end. I find Jclemen's "argument" to be absolutely no argument and DGG's response doesn't address why merge isn't a better option. Having content in one place has tremendous advantages, including syncrocity, accuracy, search efficacy. I see no upside to keeping a separate offshoot of every location on every TV show. It's an absurd extension of the normal criteria for inclusion Shadowjams (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken about the searching. If you type "Sacred Heart" into our search box, then you will be prompted with a shortlist of article names which start in this way. Sacred Heart Hospital (Scrubs) appears among them and so is a quite satisfactory and helpful search link. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to persuasive arguments of User:Colonel Warden. The article's contents are verifiable through news sources and multiple published books, including an Encyclopedia of television subjects, themes and settings‎. Per first pillar, we typically include information that appears in such specialized encyclopedias. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Redundant to main article, already mentioned there/ Ryan4314 (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Yes, articles exist about fictional places. Just as many articles about fictional places get merged. As a topic by itself, the hospital enjoys no notability outside of the program itself. A good example would be the Jedi Temple. It appears in a couple of major motion pictures and is referenced extensively in the books and games. It is described in great detail in the books, as is the history of it. There are numerous references to the architecture, decor, importance etc. and the building plays an important role in a number of books. But the AfD ended up being a merge and redirect. I see less of a reason to keep this as a stand alone than that one. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2009 (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.