Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handbook of COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. bibliomaniac15 23:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Handbook of COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment

[edit]

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

Handbook of COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment (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)

Nomination on behalf of IP. -- (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone tell me why the IP user keeps his anonymity while s/he is allowed to mess around with wikipedia with another user (Tyw7) as intermediary? Is this accepted practice? A link to a wiki document tell where this practice is affirmed would be useful. Magnovvig (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnovvig:, yeah, check WP:AFDHOW, which says If you are unregistered, you should...note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process. Tyw7 was merely performing the last stage as instructed. Sorry about that. ——SN54129 15:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Serial Number 54129:. IP user seems childlike. I contradicted him on one of his edits, then he nominated for deletion. Sheesh. Magnovvig (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy/Draftify per WP:ATD. It may not pass our notability guidelines as it stands, but time might tell: something that is claimed to summarize...applicable methods for treating COVID-19 patients – especially critically ill patients – while serving as a point of reference for other countries battling the pandemic is only likely to become more, rather than less, notable by our standards. ——SN54129 15:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify: No evidence of notability, and no evidence that this particular book will inevitably become notable just because it has a topic that other publications could also have as their topic. --Closeapple (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misses the point, fyi: the difference is rather that between a Haynes Manual for the Ford Fiesta and the original blueprints. ——SN54129 13:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional independent reliable source from Spanish newspaper La Razón ([1]). I think it is still not enough to prove notability though. --MarioGom (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find significant coverage from independent sources. The random mentions are not from generally reputable sources. Natureium (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been substantially amended since the discussion started, with the addition of significant and notable references. As a result, the above discussion is obsolete and a new discussion should be initiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnovvig (talk • contribs) 2020-04-09 06:46 (UTC)
  • Keep: With the addition of five references, the article now has seven independent sources of noteworthiness. This is more than enough significant independent coverage to satisfy any impartial arbiter. Magnovvig (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am skeptical of the reliability of the new sources. The German and Spanish articles don't have bylines and I wasn't able to find any information on who runs the site. We have to be extra careful to use only reliable sources because of the WP:MEDRS implications. Indeed, none of the independent sources is medrs compliant, which is a serious issue. buidhe 08:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now the article contains improper synthesis opinions of Wikipedia editors about whether someone ("he" — can't tell if it's about a reporter or a letter writer or a Italian politician) was ignorant of a particular Wikipedia article and some other news story. And I still only see 2 or 3 sources that are even plausibly WP:SIGCOV in the references, after days of digging by multiple Wikipedians. That sounds like WP:TOOSOON. --Closeapple (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Handbook_of_COVID-19_Prevention_and_Treatment&oldid=950996201"