Wikipedia:articles For Deletion Criticism Of Response To The 2019 �20 Coronavirus Pandemic

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 redirect to a target to be decided. There are two consensuses in the discussion here. The first is that there is verifiable encyclopedic information that should be preserved by merging into other articles (though it was not4ed that some article's editors have already rejected this content). The second consensus is that our guidelines do not support having that information collected into this kind of article. Some of the ways of accommodating these somewhat paradoxical consensuses (e.g. Draftify/merge and then delete) create issues with our license. The preference for continued attribution for information that has been written while also not preserving this as an article leaves the best option to keep the article history by making this into a redirect. Given the complete lack of consensus as to what a possible redirect/merge target might be I leave it to an interested editor to make a bold edit and choose a target. If there is disagreement there can be discussion on the redirect's talk page or use of Redirects for Discussion to achieve a consensus. Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

[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)

With certain exceptions, "Criticism" articles generally aren't a good way to organize our content, as they are a magnet for NPOV problems. Most of the issues discussed in this article should be included in other articles instead (generally the articles about the pandemic in particular countries), and a lot of them already are. It has also been pointed out that the article is perhaps indiscriminate—it includes a wide variety of criticism of different parties for very different reasons. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Criticism article for prior discussion. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 23:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply

'Delete per WP:NOPAGE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Article is mainly depending on content forking and can't be written in a neutral tone. Orientls ( talk) 01:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Create two separate articles, one on China, one on the US, and delete everything else. These two sections are well fleshed out and could stand alone as their own articles. Most of everything else is duplicated elsewhere anyway.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 02:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete not everyone is perfect. Wareon ( talk) 04:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - The list is entirely unnecessary, indiscriminate, and unhelpful. We don't need a criticism to a response to a fear of a sickness. 🌺Kori🌺 - ( @) 06:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Weak delete: WP:CSECTION (essay, not policy) has been often cited in relation to this article. Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § Current consensus. Skimming through the article, I see three types of content: 1) content that is already covered as part of the main subject article, 2) content that is notable/due but not covered yet in the main subject article and 3) content that was found non-notable or undue weight and made its way to this article in spite of previous objections to inclusion elsewhere. I think it would be worth if more people went through the article to try to rescue the second type and add it where appropriate. -- MarioGom ( talk) 08:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nom. >> BEANS X2^t 10:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - indiscriminate Spiderone 16:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete To explicitly focus on criticism is unbalanced and so contrary to core policy. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep At least until this information can be verified as properly integrated into other articles without any details "lost" in the transmission. The article is indeed indiscriminate, but this is all important information that must remain available. The person who filed this has also made the argument that individual articles should not have criticism sections. Well if articles can't have criticism sections, and we can't have this as well, how is that any different from censoring this information off of Wikipedia entirely? Symphony Regalia ( talk) 20:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Criticism, praise, and other evaluations and reports from reliable sources should all be integrated into articles in the relevant sections, with due weight. In general, an article with a disproportionate focus on criticism isn't following WP:NPOV. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 21:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Criticism articles can violate WP:NPOV, but it is important to note that this is not always the case: "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location." Symphony Regalia ( talk) 02:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Why do we have to make sure that all information has been added to other articles? Information already exists in most and rest can be moved if a person requests a copy of a deleted article in good faith. There is no requirement of making sure that the information has been moved before deletion. I don't see anything that important here when it comes to retaining. Wareon ( talk) 14:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

As a body of information that is not directly controlled by a government, I believe Wikipedia plays a vital role in that it hosts sensitive information that is not available in many countries. To give a major example, criticism regarding China's misinformation campaigns and/or the extent they went to cover certain things up, is of course not available in China, and it is also not available on many news outlets outside of China, because China of exerting soft power over those news organizations or the governments of the countries that host those news organizations, through financial means and otherwise. Wikipedia is the last line of defense regarding a lot of information that governments out there want wiped from the internet. If the article it is to be deleted it is important that the criticisms are preserved. Symphony Regalia ( talk) 02:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Temporary draftify so that relevant information can be merged into the corresponding articles, then delete once that process is complete. This content is better integrated with the actual responses themselves. b uidh e 05:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Temporary draftify so that non-redundant, notable parts can be merged. Deleting destroys the edit history and attribution. Having a separate criticism page splits notable information from the place where the reader expects to find it; there are some cases where separate criticism sections make sense. Could we keep the article? This pandemic is an event in which most governments around the world ignored all the repeated warnings over the last two decades (or listened to them and decided to cancel initial preparations anyway, for "economic" reasons), and reacted slowly during late 2019/early 2020, so it may be the case that worldwide criticism of governmental authorities is in itself WP-notable. However, the sources to establish notability of the article as a separate phenomenon are not present in the lead or any obvious introductory sections/sentences, and I'm not volunteering to provide them. So temporary draftifying would be reasonable to allow people to recover/integrate the more notable material. Boud ( talk) 21:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, The article is well sourced and is discussing the subject on a global level,it is encyclopedic. Alex-h ( talk) 13:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - this pandemic is the biggest thing that has happened to the world, and to Wikipedia. This is a valid, encyclopedia article. Bearian ( talk) 00:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Merge Merging this article with Protests over responses to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic could solve the NPOV issue, since it covers both the lockdowns and the response thereof. Caleb M1 ( talk) 17:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Now we have Draft:Mismanagement of the 2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic, currently at MFD. b uidh e 20:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Getting too close to "those responsible for the sacking have themselves been sacked" ground. Over-boiled and hyper-detailed content that could easily be condensed and covered elsewhere. Zaathras ( talk) 21:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Entities around the world have been criticized, and those criticisms have been documented in detail. The article has over 200 sources, many by reliable sources per WP:RSP. Also, i'm pretty sure teachers and professors in a few years will start asking their students to make reports and homework related to the subject of the article. Pancho507 ( talk) 10:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Temporary draftify I agree with a mix of these so that relevant information can be merged into the corresponding articles, then delete once that process is complete. This content is better integrated with the actual responses themselves. Thanks user:Buidhe I believe they will also be important for historical reasons however every statement made also need a reliable verifiable source . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galendalia ( talk • contribs) 10:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete (merging content from the article into country-specific articles, if the content is not already there) -- ChaTo ( talk) 13:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete To focus a whole article solely on criticism creates NPOV issues. The article refers to "lax measures", "surrounded in controversy", "controversial plan", "widespread discontent" etc. in a tone that doesn't seem neutral to me. Some of the content (but not all) would be better integrated in various articles about the responses from different countries. Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 23:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Completely unnecessary and fueled by the opinions of creator/editor(s). This pandemic is virgin territory for the entire planet and, as a previous voter said, nobody's perfect. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep But rename and tinker with the scope. I think the current title is part of the source of ire. "Criticism" is a harsh word that inherently creates POV issues. Instead, how about Government reactions to 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic or International response to 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic or Assessment of response to 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic or...you get the point. The scope also needs to be changed to allow both positive and negative feedback, not just the negative, as that is a POV issue and undue weight, since we don't have an article titled Successes of response to 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 11:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply
@ CaptainEek: We already have a National responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 15:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Mx. Granger, Oh, thanks for pointing that out, I can't keep all of these pages straight :) In that case, I might suggest a merge to that target. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 16:52, 29 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.