Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liu Fan (nurse)

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. Significant coverage in reliable sources, added subsequent to the nomination, is the reason the consensus is to keep this article. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Fan (nurse)[edit]

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

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

Completing for TheLongTone. Initial rationale (with datestamp) was Dying of this virus is, even in the early stages of the epidemic, not a plausible claim of notability. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I'm open to a plausible redirect target.TheLongTone (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC). I have no opinion on subject. Nightfury 14:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now supplemented some contexts which made her notable, and will continue to add more. Her death attracted national attention and considerable controversies ensued which occupied press coverage for days. She was also an important figure in the early chronology of the coronavirus outbreak. A Google search for her returns more than five million results: https://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%9F%B3%E5%B8%86+%22%E6%8A%A4%E5%A3%AB%22

I am afraid that just because you haven't heard of (English) news reports of her doesn't make her not notable, to be a bit blunt. Rethliopuks (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is always a good idea to include a plausible case for notability in the article before you click publishTheLongTone (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which I still don't see, incidentally.TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good idea not to assume that everyone has access to undivided time for a thorough Wikipedia article, especially when this article started as a translation of the Chinese article; it makes sense to keep an initial copy for reference, it retains faithfulness, it helps with the content clarity when controversies re: the content arises, among other things. As for notability, how about the first nurse to die from COVID-19? Rethliopuks (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's still lazy editing: if you have the time and motivation to write an article a couple of dozen keystrokes take no time. And no, I don't find that a plausible claim to notability, rather a reason to mention her elsewhere and redirect this article to that, since other than her death there is no content in the article of great interest.TheLongTone (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE C2-C3, D1. Rethliopuks (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, take a look at the updated article, and define "great interest". Rethliopuks (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone: You do realise that the AfD is malformed? Do you want me to fix it? Nightfury 14:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please. I used Twinkle to do it, but the beast isn't performing properly.

Consider it done. Nightfury 14:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response: WP:NOTMEMORIAL requires the non-satisfaction of the notability requirements, which for people are: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I argue that because these are all now satisfied, WP:NOTMEMORIAL has no basis and does not apply.

"Liu Fan + nurse" has 5,290,000 Google search results: [1]. "Liu Fan + Wuhan" has 9,760,000 Google search results: [2]. "Liu Fan + Wuhan + nurse" has 6,380,000 Google results: [3]. "Liu Fan + novel coronavirus" has 1,290,000: [4]. Even the most restrictive "Liu Fan + Wuhan + nurse + novel coronavirus" has 1,010,000: [5]. All the sources I cite in the article are published secondary sources that are reliable. They are intellectually independent of each other. Further, the source are all clearly independent of the subject.

I would also like to point out that the deletion request was not made for the current version of the article, but its very first version 201 seconds after the article's creation as a piece of translation for Chinese Wikipedia: link. The short time scale in which the request was published makes it difficult to presume that all the major steps of BEFORE had been heeded, especially C2 and C3 (which it seems clear had been disregarded), and secondarily D1, B6, and B2. I would therefore like to request the reader to carefully review neutrally the article as it presently stands, which is not a version to which a justified deletion request in accordance Wikipedia's policies has been raised. Rethliopuks (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 15:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 15:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 15:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. We don't need an article on the first train driver to die in this epidemic, or the first teacher. Harsh as it may seem, we don't need one for the first nurse either. It needs something else to establish WP:GNG and there isn't anything in the article at the time I am writing. There is some mention in mainstream English-language media, in the context of health worker deaths. At least an attempt to work with those might get the article somewhere. Lithopsian (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment even if her death had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG? And notice, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." Rethliopuks (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment most of the content of the article as it currently stands was published after this opinion was written. I would like to request the reader reviewing this request to take note of this fact (checkable via the article's history page) that descriptions in this opinion may not apply to the current version of the article, and review the article as it stands. Rethliopuks (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the additional details provide useful background on the reactions of the authorities.--Ipigott (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to Death of Liu Fan based on available sources. TJMSmith (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perhaps borderline, but not an obvious candidate for deletion. --Orthorhombic, 14:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't read Chinese newspapers but it would appear that her death was a notable event in China. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News results in Chinese language suggest sufficient notability. Idolmm (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy any of the above. Notable only for dying? She is worth a one-line mention in another article, and a redirect. All the content of this article is of absolutely no encyclopedic value.TheLongTone (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only have the most remedial knowledge of Chinese and I can't eke out characters yet, but in English many top of the line reliable sources consider this woman's death notable. What we don't know is if her life was, in the context of Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. I don't consider this memorialism though. ⌚️ (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A search in the current news of China shows notable. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable in China. Chongkian (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep per WP:SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rethliopuks and Lightburst. — Hunter Kahn 03:00, 16 March 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.