Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese virus

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. The articles on the current disease and the virus do not use the phrase "Chinese virus" at all, so would make poor redirect targets. The article's on Donald Trump's use of the phrase do include the term, but as pointed out are not likely to be the topic sought either. If content about the nomenclature is added to COVID-19, no prejudice in this close for redirecting there then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Chinese virus

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Chinese virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Per WP:ATP. Njzjz (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Njzjz (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Njzjz (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Njzjz (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: A similar discussion is taking place over whether the term should be included in the main Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 article over at Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Repeated_addition_of_"China_Virus" Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment there are several viruses named "China virus", listed at List of virus species; there are several more viruses that are named after places in China, so "Chinese virus" would be an appropriate search term for all these viruses. If this is deleted, then it should redirect to either List of virus species or List of virus taxa. But that already excludes the use of the U.S. President, whom is using "Chinese virus" to refer to the COVID-19 virus. Thus, if you ignore Trump's personal terminology, there is still actual use of this as an actual virus name (that is not COVID-19 related, and not human-virus-related either). -- 67.70.32.186 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Redirect to Coronavirus disease 2019: The term "Chinese virus" is being used widely in the media to refer to COVID-19 (because Trump is using the term). It is likely that some readers will hear the term and not know (or care) about whether it's an appropriate way to describe COVID-19 — and search for information about the current pandemic using "Chinese virus". Those readers should be directed to the COVID-19 information that they're looking for. It's not often that an AfD discussion about a disambiguation page could actually affect whether someone can find life-saving information, but these are interesting times. We should direct those readers to the information that they need. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I changed my vote to Redirect, which more clearly expresses my opinion. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not censored. This does not seem to meet any criteria for deletion, and the term is used by many across the world, including the United States president. Removing would be unencyclopedic. 2600:1010:B15D:5299:ED8B:CD7:4EBA:38D1 (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Obvious IP-sock. No real first-time user goes to an AfD to argue about criteria for deletion. Jeppiz (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect somewhere, possibly to Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States#Donald Trump presidency. The entries from List of virus species are "China virus"es, and they're partial matches to boot. SARS wasn't called the "Chinese virus", other than as a simple adjective-noun pairing. Would you list Lionel Messi in Argentine footballer? That just leaves COVID-19, and that minor Trump idiocy isn't even mentioned in that article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The list of viruses also contains viruses named after places in China, so also Chinese viruses. As search terms, the neutral search would lead to the list of viruses for both "China" and "Chinese" as good and valid search term redirects, while the recentism search would lead to a COVID-19 topic (the pandemic, the disease or the virus articles) -- 67.70.32.186 (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment--on ngram viewer the term dates back to 1959. Most use is found starting in 1984. It does not appear to be a fad term. I might add that the Spanish flu page is currently under discussion about moving it to a non-xenophobic name. Maybe we should wait and see what they do and do the same for consistency? It seems undesirable to say Chinese virus is xenophobic but Spanish flu is okay, or Spanish flu is xenophobic and Chinese virus is okay. I can live with both options, as long as you don't change Lutheran antigen system to Separated brethren antigen system.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete The WHO said it is racist, and all regions should not to use this term. It also applies to WP:R: "the redirect is offensive or abusive". So I think this redirect should be deleted.--Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 07:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep It does not violate WP:ATP because it is not an attack page; it does not disparage the viruses and the tone of the page is about as neutral as one could make it. Having a disambiguation page is consistent with WP:DPAGE because "Chinese virus" could refer to past flus associated with China, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic, or the virus that causes mosaic disease in plants. While SARS-CoV-2 would likely be the primary topic per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, it is wise to avoid recentism given that the pandemic is a major news item at the moment, so it makes more sense to have it as a disambiguation page instead of a direct redirect to SARS-CoV-2 that adds a hatnote pointing users to Clerodendrum golden mosaic China virus. Additionally, the fact that 13 viruses include the name "China" in list of virus species would make it implausible to hatnote and instead, the list is linked in the disambiguation page. Zach Vega (<>talk to me) 09:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep – Donald Trump use this term to mean coronavirus.

--Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment

1. Donald Trump and British Columbia newspaper The_Province have used the name “Chinese virus” before. And some similar names, such as “Wuhan virus”, “Chinese Coronavirus”, has been used by Mike Pompeo and Fox News host respectively. Hence, “Chinese virus” and these similar names have been used widely.
2. Donald Trump said that “It’s not racist at all”. China's government reject US and said that it is “stigmatization". WHO official warns against calling it 'Chinese virus' and says 'there is no blame in this'. Hence, “Chinese virus” has a wide dispute.
3. In conclusion, “Chinese virus” and these similar name have been used widely. And “Chinese virus' has a wide dispute. Hence, we should be based on WP:NPOV to treat “Chinese virus” and these similar names, and WP:ATP should not be the deletion reason. Thank you. --SCP-2000 13:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Furthermore, in this case, the view of the World Health Organization should be regarded as an opinion, and should not be regarded as a fact. --SCP-2000 13:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect as per Clarityfiend. None of the virus species mentioned on the list of virus species are ever referred to as simply “Chinese virus”. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to some page to which has been added a sourced statement that this is Donald Trump's terminology: either Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, to which Wuhan Virus already leads (the third paragraph of the lead discusses nomenclature, and could almost form a new section, especially with this addition?), or Misinformation_related_to_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#United_States_2 (to clarify, the hierarchy of headings has this as a subsection of "Misinformation by governments"). Either way, the rd needs to be explained by showing the source of this name. PamD 14:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge with China flu. TJRC (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Coronavirus disease 2019. It is not a separate concept. It refers to the coronavirus that originated in China. Natureium (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Coronavirus disease 2019 as per WP:OTHERNAMES. The virus originated in China (despite propaganda from the Chinese government that states otherwise [1]), so this is actually an accurate name. The nominator is misguided as this has zero elements of an attack page.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Not an attack page, unless Spanish flu is an attack page. Primary topic seems to be the current coronavirus, so I recommend a redirect to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. I think the media has overblown this one because, although I'm against racism, it's not incorrect to call a virus that originated in China, a "Chinese virus". buidhe 17:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect This is a name applied to the present COVID-19. Normally we do not require sources for disambiguation, but in this case, I would want to see sources about these other conditions because I am unclear if anyone ever called them "Chinese virus". I have no objection to anyone creating a page for "viruses originating in China", if one does not otherwise exist. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to Donald Trump. It os not an accurate name for the virus, not used by any expert or WHO, nor is it in common use. It's use by a demagogue is more relevant for the article of said demagogue than for any virus. And yes, obviously WP:ATP applies. Jeppiz (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  And you calling President Trump a demagogue obviously is not an attack.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to Coronavirus disease 2019 Racial views of Donald Trump because the criticisms relate to his racial motives and xenophobic base. Trump just uses the slur to appeal to his xenophobic base. It doesn't deserve an article. Someone is bound to use it as a search term, so make a redirect out of it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Racial views of Donald Trump. Guettarda (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Note as I said below, "a Google News search for "Chinese virus" gives me 8.4 million hits, while "Chinese virus" -Trump gives me fewer than 78k hits". This is overwhelmingly a Trumpian slur. No one looking for it is looking for the top, though a few of them might be looking for Wikipedia to validate their bigotry. Guettarda (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not a slur. The President of the United States receiving wide coverage for using it, has nothing to do with what people are using the word for. No one searching for the term on Wikipedia is looking for information on the United States President. It's a phrase that refers to a virus. They're looking for information on that virus. He did not invent it, and many people used it before him. Redirecting it to anything related to Trump would be ridiculous. Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Do not direct to anything about Donald Trump. The term was used before the United States president, is currently used by tens of millions now who are not Trump (including United States members of Congress, Secretary of States, news anchors), and when people search the term they are not looking for information about him. They are looking for information about a virus. I also do not recommend redirecting to SARS-CoV-2 as historically together it refers to more than just one virus, however perhaps we can emphasize it by having SARS-CoV-2 toward the top in the disambiguation. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• As I say above, I think this is best merged with and redirected to the overlapping disambiguation page Chinese flu; I don't have a strong opinion about which should be the primary name and which should be the redirect.

But I'm posting again to reiterate what Symphony Regalia says above. Under no circumstance should this redirect to anything related to Trump. I am no fan of Trump, but such a targeting would be a huge disservice to Wikipedia readers. Do any of you who are posting such suggestions really believe that a reader is searching on "Chinese virus" so they can read about Trump? Really? No. They're obviously trying to be educated about a virus.

Reasonable minds can vary on what virus-related target this should go to, but by no means should this be used as a vehicle to promote a political point of view. And I say that as someone who shares that point of view: full disclosure, I think Trump is a venal idiot. But that should not be reflected in the outcome of this discussion.

Come on. We're better than this. TJRC (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@TJRC: Do you have any sources to support this? As far as I can tell, this is just another Trumpian slur. While I know that the Google test is less that ideal, a Google News search for "Chinese virus" gives me 8.4 million hits, while "Chinese virus" -Trump gives me fewer than 78k hits. Guettarda (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

So you really believe readers searching on "Chinese virus" are looking for information on Trump, and not for information on the current pandemic? Really? Really? That's what they're seeking information on?

I don't know what you mean by "sources" in determining where a redirect goes. The idea is to get readers to the material they're looking for. The issue is not how often the term occurs ion media relating to Trump; it's what the readers using the term are looking for.

I understand that most people who hear and use the phrase "Chinese virus" are likely Trump fans, and can appreciate the the schadenfreude in sending them to an article on Trump instead of what they're looking for. But is that really what you want to use Wikipedia for? TJRC (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@TJRC:I'm quite confidence that people searching for "Chinese virus" when they're trying to learn about Covid-19, just like people searching for "n*..." aren't actually looking for articles about black people. I don't believe that anyone is actually that stupid. But guess what - I'm basing my response here on policy, not on my faith in humanity. As for the rest of it? Schadenfreude? You've been here long enough to know that WP:NPA is policy. You're crossing a line with your insults. Please stop. Guettarda (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

All else aside, if you're trying to make a moral argument, there are two sides at play. Even if you're right, even if some people come here looking for Covid-19, the slur you're saying we should normalise is rooted in the kind of hateful bigotry that leaves us with this: List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. I don't believe that's your aim, but the logical consequence of having Wikipedia validate this slur is more racist and xenophobic attacks. Normalising this slur puts people's lives at risk. Guettarda (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.

I also want to point out that "chinese" is not a race it is a nationality, and "xenophobic" as a term is also largely useless in a global context (English Wikipedia is used in nearly every country on earth), so determining whether something "validates" xenophobia or not is also an exercise in futility. For example, and I do not mean to be flippant, China is perhaps one of the most xenophobic places on earth both as a matter of culture and national policy. Does Wikipedia having on article on China validate xenophobia? Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the term "Chinese virus" even used to any significant extent outside the United States? In the context in which it is used, by right-wing American politicians, it is a xenophobic term. But even more to the point, "Chinese virus" is simply not a widely used name for SARS-CoV-2. It is widely called either by the name of the disease, "CoVID-19," or by the name of the virus, "SARS-CoV-2," or by the family the virus belongs to, "Coronavirus." -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Note the name is not offensive or racist. However I do think the page is pretty useless, also China virus should likely redirect to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or perhaps the disese or pandemic page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect to one of the articles related to the virus or pandemic. The term has in fact been widely used (not just by Trump) or discussed, so regardless of whether some see it as offensive towards China, there is no reason not to keep this as a disambiguation page or redirect (WP:NOTCENSORED). More than 500 people searched for this term on the English Wikipedia the day before the disambiguation page was nominated for deletion. We don't delete the article on the Spanish flu either. --Tataral (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep' or redirect to COVID-19 or another article related to the virus. WP:ATP does not apply here; the tone of the dab page is as neutral as any other, and wikipedia is not censored. This term has received widespread coverage by reliable sources. Symphony Regalia makes a good point; Wikipedia has always contained content that some people have found offensive, and, as much as I fully understand it if you hate Trump, a redirect or dab page isn't xenophobic. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I just checked French disease and it is a redirect to syphilis. If that isn't xenophobic, I don't know what is, especially since historically it originated in the Americas and from what I understand it came to Europe with explorers from a different country, not France. Yet the term "French disease" is common in historical literature, so to delete it would possibly be worse than keeping it, because students will encounter it in source documents or fictional literature of the past and not know what it is. Having the redirect is helpful for educating people, and being non-xenophobic would lead to ignorance. Also, as I stated in my previous comment, the term "Chinese virus" has been received consistent usage in English literature since 1984. It occurred to me that since the great firewall blocks wikipedia, the only Chinese we risk offending are expats, those on VPNs, and those in Taiwan and maybe Hong Kong/Macau. Unfortunately, the expats are the ones most vulnerable to xenophobia, especially now.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect to COVID-19, regardless of whether it's offensive or not, the term is used to refer to this current pandemic originating from China. --Local hero ^talk 17:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This should be used as a redirect due to the term's appearance in reliable sources. This is not an attack page because of that fact. It could be considered offensive (I don't think it is), but we don't remove material just because it may be objectionable. Also, consider the above comments about Spanish flu and French disease, neither of which are proper names for the infection but we still have the pages. funplussmart (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to either Coronavirus disease 2019 or Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 per Epiphyllumlover's logic. Trump uses it as a slur, but that doesn't keep it from being useful in directing readers appropriately. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, as a disambiguation page, or Redirect to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This is a very likely search term, and WP is not censored. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment-- there is a discussion on Talk:Chinese_virus about whether it is appropriate to indicate the potential pejorative sense on the existing disambiguation page.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. It is obviously intended and used as a xenophobic slur. --MaeseLeon (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. Just like people searching for the Spanish flu are looking for information about the Spanish flu and not about anti-Spanish sentiment, people searching for this term are most likely looking for information about the pandemic/virus, not about anti-China sentiment. It's more helpful to our readers to explain the term and its use in an article about the pandemic, and redirect the term there. --Tataral (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep this article as it is, with the proper name, Chinese Virus, after the corrupt, communist government that allowed it to infect the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:200:3A50:C9BF:6358:C9E8:CB34 (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep As disambiguation page. Do not redirect, instead have separate links to the associated usages. Look, ‘China virus’ or ‘Chinese virus’ is at least ALSO an informal phrasing, including for SARS in 2003. It has recently been used in BBC and , in Bloomberg, in Reuters, in Nature, and others. This month it is also part of China wanting reasonably to distance the association and of other nations to use in framing border closures. It is also this week or so become associated to claims of racism, and MULTIPLE article links mentioned here. None of these are so dominant as to justify it being a redirect and shutting off the other links, and it would be helpful to lead readers to the associated links. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Unfortunately, the term is being widely used for the current virus, but it is also used for other viruses so it should be kept. A discussion is going on on over at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Careless talk costs lives about whether the term should be used in the main article, but it has relatively few contributors so I hope other will join so we can reach consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per The Washington Post:
  Chinese coronavirus infections, death toll soar as fifth case is confirmed in U.S.
  and per The Guardian:
  China virus: ten cities locked down and Beijing festivities scrapped
  and per the France 24:
  China virus death toll rises to 42, more than 1,400 infected worldwide
  and per the BBC:
  China coronavirus: Death toll rises as disease spreads
  Last I heard, we in Wikipedia go by the WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • XavierItzm, all of your sources are talking about the course of the disease in China. You may have misunderstood the discussion. There is no question that the virus originated in China, but Trump has substituted the word "corona" with "China" when he says "China virus" or "Chinese virus". Both terms have been widely criticized as being racist, and there has been a strong uptick in racist attacks on Chinese and other Asian people in the United States. His words have very unfortunate consequences, much to the joy of his xenophobic supporters. -- Valjean (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The sources refer to a "China virus." I don't see how The Guardian can use the phrase "China virus" and if some people use it is bad and if other people use it is good. By the way, I, for one, do not like French food. What kind of mental gymnastics would it take to say I have anything against France, a country I love, have lived in, and will return to literally a handful of days after it reopens its borders? XavierItzm (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: The latest source in your list is from 27 January, barely a month after the discovery of the virus. Back then, the virus was not yet known to have spread widely outside China. I don't see any sources nowadays referring to the "Chinese virus" or "China virus," except when quoting Trump or other right-wing political figures in the United States. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS lose no validity as time goes by. The 9/11 Wikipedia entry, for example, includes many citations from September 2001. Are you seriously proposing those reliable sources be deleted because they were written in the immediate aftermath of 9/11? XavierItzm (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they can lose validity. The references you're citing are all from the very early days of reporting on the virus, before it even had a name, and when the virus was largely confined to China. The virus now has a name, and it's not confined to China. In fact, China is now one of the less-affected areas of the world at the moment. I haven't seen any publication refer to "China virus" or "Chinese virus" in months now, except to quote Trump or other right-wing American politicians. "China virus" is not a name for SARS-CoV-2. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

If you really believe that, you need a new Wikipedia policy stating that WP:RS cease to have validity by your own personal deadlines, and get on deleting all the September 2001 sources in the 9/11 article. Once the policy is in place, then we can have this conversation again. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The policy already exists, and is called WP:RS AGE. It specifically mentions changing vocabulary. All the sources you listed above are from 27 January or earlier. The disease was only named on 11 February 2020: [2]. Early reports didn't have any name to call the virus, because no name existed back then - it was only discovered in late December 2019, and only began to be covered by Western press in January 2020.

I'd also like to point out that you're misreading some of your sources. The France24 headline was "China virus death toll rises to 42 [...]" This is shorthand for "Death toll in China rises to 42," not "Death toll from the China virus rises to 42." The Washington Post said that "Chinese coronavirus infections, death toll soar." They're discussing the number of coronavirus infections in China, not the number of infections with "Chinese coronavirus." Remember that back at this early date, the virus had no name and almost all known cases were in China. Both facts have now changed - the virus has a name and the vast majority of cases are outside China. Nowadays, "China virus" or "Chinese virus" is a political slogan, not a widely used name for SARS-CoV-2. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The relevant policies are WP:COMMONNAME, and/or WP:POVNAME. WP:RS AGE clearly says: "Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing." Please avoid WP:RECENCY. This is why the 9/11 articles have so many sources from the earliest days. Same principles apply here. XavierItzm (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS AGE also says, "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed." Every source you've cited comes from the very early days of reporting on the virus, before it even had a name. It has a name now, and that name is not "Chinese virus."

I see no risk of WP:RECENCY in using the names "CoVID-19" and "SARS-CoV-2," unless you think that the world is about to adopt the phrases that Trump and his political allies have been insisting on using, "Chinese virus," "China virus," etc. "Chinese virus" is simply not the common name that the virus is known by. Who, outside of Trump and a few other right-wing political figures in the US, do you see using this phrase? -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Very well put. I agree 100% with Thucydides411. -- Valjean (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: The only current references to "Chinese virus" or "China virus" that I've seen are quotes from Trump and other right-wing politicians in the United States. This is not the common name for SARS-CoV-2. The only appropriate subject for an article titled "China virus" or "Chinese virus" would be the use of that term by American politicians, not the virus itself. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

yay, must have missed The Guardian: China virus: ten cities locked down and Beijing festivities scrapped and similar sources cited above. XavierItzm (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I said "current references." January 23rd is not current, especially in the context of SARS-CoV-2. You know that I'm aware of this reference, because I responded to you above, so I'd appreciate a bit less sarcasm and a bit more good faith. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to Racial views of Donald Trump. This is a simple phrase that can be far better covered in the article on Donald Trump's racial views than this racism-legitimising disambiguation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Coronavirus disease 2019. desmay (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment--I've attempted to address some of the pro-delete voters' concerns on the disambig page, feel free to check it out or join the discussion on the talk page there.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent additions and certainly should remove any concerns. It is so rare to see so much animus towards deleting a mere disambig page. XavierItzm (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

References

• Keep - the inaccuracy and partisan nature of "China virus" is no different to another disambiguation page, Muslim ban. The links on that page are 1) A ban on all citizens from some countries on entering the US, regardless of religion 2) A ban on a legal system, which is also banned by some Muslims 3 & 4) Bans on face covering regardless of religion, including those worn by a minority of Muslim women. The deletion discussion on the redirect of "Muslim ban" to the Trump order [3] said that it should be kept for being a valid search term based on social media trends, rather than for it being factual, neutral or accurate: "This RfD is pedantic and only impedes readers using a very popular name that has been widely bandied about in the news and social media", "this redirect is a highly plausible search term for its current target" "This executive order is often referred to as the Muslim Ban in the media and on social platforms" Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - If you are Chinese, I want to tell you about Reston virus, a type of Ebola named by Americans after a place in Virginia. There is even a particular breed of this virus named after Pennsylvania. As Ebola has a worse reputation than SARS, maybe you can take some solace in in knowing this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2020 (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.