| Revision as of 08:56, 4 May 2020 editMistyGraceWhite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,067 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:28, 5 May 2020 edit undoWareon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,577 edits - banned sockNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| *'''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''' AfD appears as an attempt to ] using trivial reasons. If other countries are not having that article, then they must be created. This article has useful information on a notable topic, that has enough coverage in reliable media that proves it passes ] to have a standalone article. If ] failed to credit by mentioning the Misplaced Pages article while copying, and for that reason people are deleting it then it will be a gross misuse of the process. I cant understand what is preventing ] or nom or anyone to add merge templates on the talk page, announcing the source articles. The article size of the International article is large and per ] this looks like a good ] ] (]) 19:46, 3 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)) | ||
| ::Now this is what I would as a typical ] !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. ] (]) 00:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC) | ::Now this is what I would as a typical ] !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. ] (]) 00:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:28, 5 May 2020
Misinformation related to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India
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!
- 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)
- Delete per nom CrazyBoy826 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete We already know that not everyone had the correct information about the coronavirus. A separate country based article is unnecessary. Wareon (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Misplaced Pages isn't for feeding one-off coverages of trivial occurrences. Azuredivay (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- delete per all the above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above, probable candidate for speedy delete Spiderone 16:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Article is way too specific and unnecessary. Kori (@) 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 WP:TNT, I want to read some quotes that you deem irrecoverable. As for the fork part, editors are allowed to create content forks per WP:CFORK. Have you looked at the size of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India? It is above 9 thousand words and is almost WP:TOOBIG. Same with Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic 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 WP:NOTNEWS, WP:IINFO or perhaps WP:TRIVIAL. Long term coverage in reliable sources, tens of thousands of google hits on each subheading and the existence of Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic 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. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC) (edited to make it more concise) MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:45, 4 May 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)
- 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)
- Speedy delete Redundant POVFORK. Misplaced Pages is not for collecting information only because it is verifiable. Srijanx22 (talk) 04:04, 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 WP:NOTNEWS , WP:INDISCRIMINATE and most importantly WP:NOTRUMOR WP:SPECULATION . a delete is requiredShrikanthv (talk) 07:41, 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)