Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Misinformation related to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:28, 5 May 2020 editWareon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,577 edits - banned sock← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:44, 25 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(20 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
⚫ ===]===
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}}
<!--Template:Afd top


Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''delete'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
⚫ ===]===
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|Misinformation related to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>) :{{la|Misinformation related to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
Line 15: Line 20:
*'''delete''' per all the above--] (]) 13:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC) *'''delete''' per all the above--] (]) 13:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom and above.] (]) 13:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per nom and above.] (]) 13:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per all of the above, probable candidate for '''speedy delete''' ] 16:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per all of the above, probable candidate for '''speedy delete''' ] 16:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - Article is way too specific and unnecessary. <span style="background-color: orange; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] (])</span> 17:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC) *'''Delete''' - Article is way too specific and unnecessary. <span style="background-color: orange; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] (])</span> 17:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' No valid arguments for deletion. There are two types of arguments for deletion. One type is that which says that the content of the article is fine, but it should exist on other venues. Like the Nom, who says that it is POV fork. What exactly is POV in the title? There is nothing but straight fact. If you think that some of the content is POV then AFD is not cleanup, if it is so much of a POV that it requires complete ], I want to read some quotes that you deem irrecoverable. As for the fork part, editors are allowed to create content forks per ]. Have you looked at the size of ]? It is above 9 thousand words and is almost ]. Same with ] which comes in at a whopping 15 thousand words. I think it is much better to have sepreate articles instead of sending a reader plodding through a hodgpodge of text in one huge article. Then there are the arguments who say that this content should not exist anywhere on wikipedia at all as per ], ] or perhaps ]. Long term coverage in reliable sources, tens of thousands of google hits on each subheading and the existence of ] proves that this does not come under any of those deletion rationales. The information in this article in niether trivial nor random. Every single incident is related to the topic. ] (]) 20:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC) (edited to make it more concise) ] (]) 08:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)) *'''Keep''' No valid arguments for deletion. There are two types of arguments for deletion. One type is that which says that the content of the article is fine, but it should exist on other venues. Like the Nom, who says that it is POV fork. What exactly is POV in the title? There is nothing but straight fact. If you think that some of the content is POV then AFD is not cleanup, if it is so much of a POV that it requires complete ], I want to read some quotes that you deem irrecoverable. As for the fork part, editors are allowed to create content forks per ]. Have you looked at the size of ]? It is above 9 thousand words and is almost ]. Same with ] which comes in at a whopping 15 thousand words. I think it is much better to have sepreate articles instead of sending a reader plodding through a hodgpodge of text in one huge article. Then there are the arguments who say that this content should not exist anywhere on wikipedia at all as per ], ] or perhaps ]. Long term coverage in reliable sources, tens of thousands of google hits on each subheading and the existence of ] proves that this does not come under any of those deletion rationales. The information in this article in niether trivial nor random. Every single incident is related to the topic. ] (]) 20:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC) (edited to make it more concise) ] (]) 08:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC))
Line 23: Line 28:
*''' delete''' What kind of wierd hocus pocus of an article , if we start creating the possibility of all the imaginations going on, wiki would be a collection of imagination by certain "users" not encyclopedia, as per ] , ] and most importantly ] ] . a delete is required] (]) 07:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC) *''' delete''' What kind of wierd hocus pocus of an article , if we start creating the possibility of all the imaginations going on, wiki would be a collection of imagination by certain "users" not encyclopedia, as per ] , ] and most importantly ] ] . a delete is required] (]) 07:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:@] you are making two claims that are opposite to each other. ] and ], which ones is would you like as the true rationale for deletion? ] (]) 08:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC) :@] you are making two claims that are opposite to each other. ] and ], which ones is would you like as the true rationale for deletion? ] (]) 08:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' : Per ]. Most of the content that is now claimed as being FORK was created by me for the original articles. Some content I created for ] article were salvaged into ] when the article was deleted. I reused the same content for creating this India specific article. If mentioning about the fork on the talk page solves the problem, I can easily do that. I don't understand how this becomes POVFORK : none of the respondents above who talked about POV have not mentioned what exactly is the POV they are talking about. I don't think that acknowledging that misinformation exists in the context of COVID-19 counts as POV. India being a large country with huge diversity, there could naturally be more misinformation circulating there than any other country, and such huge volume of misinformation merits the creation of a separate article. --] ] 14:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)<small>— '''Note''': {{noping|Netha Hussain}} (] • ]) has been ''']''' to this discussion, and is a '''creator''' of this article.</small> The diff provided does not show a canvass, it is according to ] . ] has already said that they are the creator of the article in their vote, including that is the note is, ]. ] (]) 16:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:*That means you simply don't understand what is a ] or ], even though you were the one who collected all possible information both related and unrelated to this subject without caring about ], ] and ]. ] (]) 15:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::@] ] is not applicable here, either you have not read the policy or have not understood it, read it again, and again, and then again if possible. ] is about making connections where there are none, this page cannot be called as such as the information on the page is accurate and all of the links are about misinformation. You have misunderstood that policy as well. ]? How does that figure in this? The page is not about anything where anyone can have an opinion, it is a listicle type of page honestly. Misinfomration occured, here are the incidents. There is nothing on the page which could have contrasting opinions, it is not like abortion rights or stuff like that. I think you should read the policy pages you quoted once again. ] (]) 15:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Stop with your personal attacks on users. This article is POVFORK created without attributing wikipedia pages where it copied content from. That violates WP:COPYVIO. You should already realize by now that this AfD is not worth ] every incoming participant. ] (]) 16:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::::@] What is POV in the fork? The origianl pages are too large anyway. You can give your answer if you can. POV is a certain definable term, so you can point out what is POV in the page. ] (]) 16:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Important content already exists on the pages linked by the nom. Creating a separate article based on that text is POVFORKING. ] (]) 16:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::] Those pages are too large and rules say that they should be forked. I think you are under the impression that pages can never be forked and anything new is a POVFORK. Being a new editor that is understandable. ] gives the rules for forking and when forking should always be done. ] (]) 16:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::For that you need consensus. Deceptively creating a new article without attributing the original pages is not how you CFORK. ] (]) 16:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::@] Deceptively? What does that mean? AFD is not cleanup, if the concern is that the page does not link to original pages you can do that with two edits and change your vote to keep. How about that? ] (]) 16:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::How else would you define a POVFORK done without notifying anyone? Content exists where it should. ] was written for a reason. ] (]) 17:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::@ HAHAHAHAHAHAH. You think that people should notify others before creating a page? I have told you a number of times that the content where it presently exists is making a page too large. So it was split, and there are no opinions or points of view on this page, so there is no POV involved. Good reason for deletion right there, the creator did not tell anyone and just went ahead and created a page. ] (]) 17:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
'''Delete''':] (]) 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 14:44, 25 March 2022

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. Sandstein 18:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation related to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Misinformation related to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India (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)

Violates WP:COPYVIO since it was creating by parts of other articles without crediting to the original article. It is a WP:POVFORK of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India#Misinformation and discrimination, Misinformation_related_to_the_2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Country-specific (India) and others. Wikpedia is not a news channel and it is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Right now India is the only country which has this type of article, and it seems clear that this kind of POVFORK, if preserved, is likely going to encourage more POVFORKs. Tessaracter (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Now this is what I would as a typical WP:ILIKEIT !vote. Collection of trivial and random information to flesh out an unnecessary article is exactly why it needs deletion. You can write a blog if you feel strongly. Azuredivay (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@User:Azuredivay You take any single sub-heading and you fill find more than 10 thousand google hits so calling this trivial is way off mark. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@User:Shrikanthv you are making two claims that are opposite to each other. WP:SPECULATION and WP:NOTNEWS, which ones is would you like as the true rationale for deletion? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep : Per User:MistyGraceWhite. Most of the content that is now claimed as being FORK was created by me for the original articles. Some content I created for Janata Curfew article were salvaged into 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India when the article was deleted. I reused the same content for creating this India specific article. If mentioning about the fork on the talk page solves the problem, I can easily do that. I don't understand how this becomes POVFORK : none of the respondents above who talked about POV have not mentioned what exactly is the POV they are talking about. I don't think that acknowledging that misinformation exists in the context of COVID-19 counts as POV. India being a large country with huge diversity, there could naturally be more misinformation circulating there than any other country, and such huge volume of misinformation merits the creation of a separate article. --Netha (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)— Note: Netha Hussain (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion, and is a creator of this article. The diff provided does not show a canvass, it is according to WP:APPNOTE . User:Netha Hussain has already said that they are the creator of the article in their vote, including that is the note is, POINTY. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@User:Srijanx22 WP:COPYVIO is not applicable here, either you have not read the policy or have not understood it, read it again, and again, and then again if possible. WP:SYNTH is about making connections where there are none, this page cannot be called as such as the information on the page is accurate and all of the links are about misinformation. You have misunderstood that policy as well. WP:ADVOCACY? How does that figure in this? The page is not about anything where anyone can have an opinion, it is a listicle type of page honestly. Misinfomration occured, here are the incidents. There is nothing on the page which could have contrasting opinions, it is not like abortion rights or stuff like that. I think you should read the policy pages you quoted once again. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Stop with your personal attacks on users. This article is POVFORK created without attributing wikipedia pages where it copied content from. That violates WP:COPYVIO. You should already realize by now that this AfD is not worth WP:BADGERING every incoming participant. Wareon (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@User talk:Wareon What is POV in the fork? The origianl pages are too large anyway. You can give your answer if you can. POV is a certain definable term, so you can point out what is POV in the page. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Important content already exists on the pages linked by the nom. Creating a separate article based on that text is POVFORKING. Wareon (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Wareon Those pages are too large and rules say that they should be forked. I think you are under the impression that pages can never be forked and anything new is a POVFORK. Being a new editor that is understandable. WP:CFORK gives the rules for forking and when forking should always be done. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
For that you need consensus. Deceptively creating a new article without attributing the original pages is not how you CFORK. Wareon (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@User:Wareon Deceptively? What does that mean? AFD is not cleanup, if the concern is that the page does not link to original pages you can do that with two edits and change your vote to keep. How about that? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
How else would you define a POVFORK done without notifying anyone? Content exists where it should. WP:NOPAGE was written for a reason. Wareon (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@ HAHAHAHAHAHAH. You think that people should notify others before creating a page? I have told you a number of times that the content where it presently exists is making a page too large. So it was split, and there are no opinions or points of view on this page, so there is no POV involved. Good reason for deletion right there, the creator did not tell anyone and just went ahead and created a page. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete:2600:1004:B01E:280B:DD23:6623:E67B:B523 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 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.