Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China

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 keep. There is a clear consensus to retain the page. Any proposals to move and/or otherwise repurpose it should be attempted in the usual way. El_C 22:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like either a WP:POVFORK of Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic or a WP:POINTy political article meant to cast blame on China which is, for better or worse, a right-wing talking point. Either way, a narrowly cast article like this seems to be bizarre. Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by Brazil or Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by Russia, etc. are redlinks for a reason. Put this out of its misery. jps (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep - well-sourced using Reuters, The NYTimes, WaPo, BBC, Guardian, WSJ, Time (UK), and others of similar quality, passes WP:GNG, not a POVFork, but a necessary spin-off. We don't consider WP:DONTLIKEIT a valid reason for deletion, especially when it involves a highly publicized controversy that is under an ongoing investigation by WHO. Put this AfD out of its misery and snow close it. Atsme 💬 📧 20:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC) Add the underlined for clarity. 01:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC) and 2nd underlined list of sources 14:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This looks like a good case of WP:CFORK the main article is very large and it is good that sub articles are branched off. OP, i will oppose your USA AfD for the same reason if it comes. Walrus Ji (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A valid WP:CFORK works by spinning off a section into a new article with a {{main}} template link from the old summary-style section back to the main article. That is manifestly not the case here. These pages are just being created by WP:POVPUSH or for some other purpose I can only surmise. jps (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to copy a summary of the China article into a section in the main article. If you think there are specific instance of POVPUSH then raise it on the talk page. I dont agree that deletion is a valid recourse for the problems you are raising. see WP:PRESERVE Walrus Ji (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this works. There is no place to put this kind of hastily stitched together material because the article out of which it was ostensibly spun out of details the misinformation point-by-point rather than trying to make some overarching point about country provenance. If the article were organized by country, that would be one thing. But it's not because this sort of approach is one that is novel and essentially being invented by Wikipdia editors rather than reflecting the analysis of outside sources. jps (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOTPERFECT. This page is a work in progress and I'm in the process of adding more content from reliable sources. Trust me, there is plenty more where this came from, and there are now details emerging about China's false case counts. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRAFT, then, if you think this is a work-in-progress. Right now, the article is nearly a WP:POLEMIC and is also pushing certain WP:FRINGE theories without context. jps (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thucydides411, I believe Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by governments#China to be the best target for merging. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is such big section, but it could be better served as a separate page. I am not sure though such pages should exist for other countries. This is special case. The pandemic originated in China, but the government tells it did not [1]. Some say it could come even from Russian VECTOR -> [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can do the China section the same way the section on the United States was done, but it doesn't make sense for the originating country to be a short section while the US has its own stand alone page. It leaves the impression of a political bent rather than a NPOV. The same applies to all the Delete and merge comments and should be noted by the closer. Atsme 💬 📧 11:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Atsme and closer. I've been involved in the splitting/spin off discussions for this article before. As can be seen here, we were discussing spinning off USA purely due to its size. We didn't discuss spinning off China (and ended up leaving it) because it was smaller than the USA section. Hopefully this is strong evidence of a valid CFORK (for USA) and strong evidence against POV. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newfraferz87: Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by governments might be a better target for merging. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:56, 27 January 2021 (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.