Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

A filtered version of the page that excludes nominations of pages in the draft namespace is available at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts.

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Files in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}


if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.
If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.
Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transclued pages.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
Add a line to MfD.

Follow   this edit link   and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
    For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~

    to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

    Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
  • If you are nominating a Portal, please make a note of your nomination here and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.
  • If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions[edit]

XFD backlog
V Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 0 0 32 97 129
TfD 0 0 0 10 10
MfD 0 0 3 1 4
FfD 0 9 7 2 18
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions[edit]

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions[edit]

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

July 23, 2021[edit]

July 22, 2021[edit]

Draft:Local Celebrity rapper/ Boxer shot![edit]

Draft:Local Celebrity rapper/ Boxer shot! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Draft highly unlikely to become article. No valid citations nor credible claim of notability. Single author pushing POV on talk. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as an unsourced BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: as per nom, and above. POV is very obvious. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Carnival[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Carnival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is not just an inactive WikiProject but the creation of a sockpuppeteer who was only active for one month on Wikipedia. It did no article assessments or have any associated pages under this WikiProject. It does have 3 associated templates/userboxes which I'd also propose be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 00:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: as an elaborate hoax. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom. Anyone genuinely interested in co-ordinating editor efforts on carnival: Work from inside the existing structures in Wikipedia:WikiProject Festivals. WikiProjects are mostly inactive, and forking them can only make it worse. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

July 21, 2021[edit]

Billie Music userspace drafts[edit]

User:Lucasvitoriano1994/Billie Music Album Charts (number-one albums from 1970's) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Lucasvitoriano1994/Billie Music Certified (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Lucasvitoriano1994/Billie Music Brazilian Charts (number-one singles from 1960's) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Lucasvitoriano1994/Reviews of Billie Music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Lucasvitoriano1994/Reviews of Billie Music (books) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Based on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucasvitoriano1994/Billie Music Charts (number-one singles from 1970's), I think this is more hoax material in regards to Billie Music. Billie Music Certified has a redirect to it called Disordered Airplay Charts. Google suggests that this isn't a chart from the 2010s. Billie Music Album Charts (number-one albums from 1970's) has the same problem as the deleted Billie Music Charts (number-one singles from 1970's) as it claims to have been influenced by charts from Billboard, UK and Australia. Any search results for Billie Music gives me Billie Eilish, a 2010s singer. Billie Music Brazilian Charts (number-one singles from 1960's) I'm not 100% sure about as I don't have access to Brazillian charts of the 1960s. Googling the notes at Reviews of Billie Music gives no search results. With Reviews of Billie Music (books), there's no indication of this such at this Marcia Lette book. Not sure why a music chart would be connected to books. There's no ratings either with the above blogspot link. Also, the MFD link is Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Billie_Music_userspace_drafts. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Among Us/Archive 1[edit]

Talk:Among Us/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Migrated archive to their own pages using similar format to Cluebot. Nathanielcwm (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as uncontroversial maintenance per G6. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • CSD#G6. This is just copy-archives, no real history. The talk page edit history remains at Talk:Among Us. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

July 20, 2021[edit]

Talk:Principality of Sealand/Principality of Sealand[edit]

Talk:Principality of Sealand/Principality of Sealand (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered with the reason "Some kind of development copy under the article Talk page which was merged into the real article more than a decade ago." FASTILY 23:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per my original speedy. It is not the article – it is an ancient development copy under the Talk page and I can see literally no value in its continued existence. I only stumbled over it because of a spelling check. Have a look at its edit history! It's all there. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC) Blimey. See below ...
  • Replace with explanation as kindly offered by Graham87 below. My revised bid having read Graham's comments and having had a quick and horrified look at the 2004 discussion. I am kind of wishing I had not noticed this ... DBaK (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Talk:Principality of Sealand or replace with explanation (which I could write), just because I hate to see significant edit history go to waste. That fork of this article was discussed in 2004 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Sealand. I don't think any of it was merged in anywhere, but I don't think deleting the page history would do any good here. Graham87 09:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Yahoo! (Company)[edit]

Draft:Yahoo! (Company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Copied from Yahoo!, no reason for a copy in draftspace. This also isn't a plausible redirect (bad disambiguation), so I think full deletion makes sense. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as this just duplicates the existing article, possibly created as a sort of test of AFC. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete as a case could also be made for a Speedy Redirect. We definitely don't need this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Europe's last dictatorship[edit]

Draft:Europe's last dictatorship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This draft was created in both article space and draft space. The article was then nominated for deletion, and has been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Europe's last dictatorship. The reasons for deletion, as noted by the closer, were varied, but none of the reasons implies that the title is likely to be notable in the future. The title in article space has since been redirected to Human rights in Belarus. There is no value in maintaining this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. POV forks in draftspace are a wholly bad idea. A draftspace page is a work in isolation from the community, is prone to go even further from core content policies, and if anything good actually gets generated there, using it is very difficult attribution-wise. An individual doing their own notes in userspace is OK, but the pretence of community drafting a POV fork is not. The material here is covered at the target of the redirect "Europe's last dictatorship", which redirects to Human rights in Belarus#International criticism of human rights in Belarus. Edit there. Discuss at Talk:Human rights in Belarus. Don't fork. Keep discussions in one place. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

July 19, 2021[edit]

User:Petrovic-Njegos subpages[edit]

User:Petrovic-Njegos/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
User:Petrovic-Njegos/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Petrovic-Njegos/Sandbox2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Petrovic-Njegos/Sandbox3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Petrovic-Njegos/Czech Polls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Petrovic-Njegos/PCF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Petrovic-Njegos/Userbox/GM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Petrovic-Njegos/Userboxes/GM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Petrovic-Njegos/Userboxes/NC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All are abandoned by the user who has not edited since August 2017. The first page is a duplicate of the Colombian peace process article. The second sandbox is just the user experimenting with election templates, but no information can be gained nor will be taken out of draft space. Sandbox2 is a duplicate of some form of the 2018 Colombian presidential election article. Sandbox3 is a template of candidates and their political party for the 2010 French regional election, but they're already exists such information on the respective article for the subject. Czech Polls is about legislative election results and yet abandoned since 2008 despite being a "Work in Progress" as stated on the page. PCF just contains a map of departments of France represented, elected one or more, or never represented by the PCF political party. Information like this doesn't exist elsewhere on Wikipedia and probably won't. Both GM's and NC are userboxes for French political parties that are not used by any user on Wikipedia. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The first sounds like a "delete" per WP:UP#COPIES. The rest sounds like stuff best left alone. Deleting inactive user's userspace makes their non-return a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Can you please: Connect deletion reasons to WP:UPNOT or WP:NOT; only bundle together things that have exactly the same deletion rationale; and don't interfere with others' usserspace without good reason. Cleaning others userspace is not a good reason on its own. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

July 18, 2021[edit]

Draft:Steven Spolansky[edit]

Draft:Steven Spolansky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Repeatedly-submitted and rejected vanity piece which has worse than a snowball's chance in hell of being an appropriate topic. Only source proffered is an episode of Wife Swap, which would be less insulting if there were actually any news hits about him on Google (string: "steven spolansky"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BLP as a page on a non-notable person including personal details of his non-notable family - we should not be hosting random peoples private information. No chance of ever becoming an article and the bizarre references to his divorce shoehorned into the page give off a distinct vibe that this is some kind of weird WP:attack page? (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Hopeless draft, disruptively submitted, began by naming children. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete No hope of this ever being an article. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 18:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete – tendentiously resubmitted after several valid rejections. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

User:ES Vic/Template:Romanian Presidential Election, 2014[edit]

User:ES Vic/Template:Romanian Presidential Election, 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

A subpage that's not needed nor will be transformed into anything else as there already exists a template for the 2014 Romanian Presidential Election, but it's also pointless as the article for the 2014 election already uses a different table for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep: No reason for deletion offered that overcomes the negative of policing others’ userspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep No overwhelming reason for deletion sufficient to delete a page in userspace.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

User:M Jorge Guimaraes[edit]

User:M Jorge Guimaraes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Previously deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST; appears to be a recreation; a draft of the same title was also deleted as abandoned. Bringing it here as this wasn't recently created. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy Delete U5/G11. Basically a resume by a user that hasn't made any other contributions. (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Possibly notable. Looks like autobiography. If a draft, it should be a subpage or in draftspace. The user should use their main userpage to say who they are as an editor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

July 17, 2021[edit]

Draft:Target Integration[edit]

Draft:Target Integration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This has been deleted or decline 4 times at least by several editors. There has been no attempt to improve it, and I do not think it could ever be successful DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It has never been to AfD. There was a quick run of mainspace G11s four years ago. It has been “declined” a few times, commented at failing WP:CORP. However, the DECLINE template encourages editing to improve, which is what the author attempted.
The better process is to REJECT the draft if it is hopeless. If it hasn’t been REJECTED, or it hasn’t been resubmitted tendentiously, then it is premature to come to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

July 4, 2021[edit]

Draft:EveryTime I Cry[edit]

Draft:EveryTime I Cry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

No need for this draft article and its talk page because the topic is now in mainspace at EveryTime I Cry. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep the redirect. Was properly redirected. WP:SRE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Try as I might, I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to keep a lousy draft as a redirect. SRE makes no sense at all. Binksternet (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
      • DraftSpace was created to be a place for junk. Finding junk there and bringing it to a community discussion at MfD is a net negative. Junk behind a redirect in draftspace is completely harmless. Sometimes, there can be important attribution information in it. If you want to delete these redirects, you have to be sure there is no forgotten attribution that you are about to lose forever, and the cost of doing that is not zero. These redirects do not even need to be G13-ed, because G13 was only required because live drafts sometimes contain offensive things, BLP violations, copyright violations, etc. When it comes to a draft for an article, there is no reason to suspect these thing, and it is only in the history anyway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. The page was created by User:Zhmailik and has been edited only by their sockpuppet IPs. Nothing in the history is important enough to maintain such page in existence. (CC) Tbhotch 15:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    You refer to this open SPI case? The allegation that the IP is the blocked user should be kept at SPI, and if concluded to be the case, should only come to MfD if an SPI clerk thinks so. MfD is not for shadow SPI clerking. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:G5, which overrides the criteria for WP:SRE. See the July 3, 2021, section on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhmailik. I am not sure why the mainspace article contains the miscellany deletion tag as of this version, considering that it does not link to this discussion. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep the speedy redirect. The G5 nomination was declined by User:Liz. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect again per those above. G5 has been declined; this should not be the venue to litigate sockpuppetry matters. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The redirect.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • question (somewhat off topic) Is there a better template for situations like this? {{draft}} points out that there exist a article but it stills says the draft is "a work in progress" while I presume it would be better to direct anyone reading at the dfraft there to improve *the article*, not the draft. Oh... keep, and replace the current template by the one I ask for above :-) - Nabla (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    There is no need for any template. Just make it a redirect.
    Some people like recently invented redirect page templates. Let them worry about them but don’t worry yourself. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

June 29, 2021[edit]

Wikipedia:Copy and paste[edit]

Wikipedia:Copy and paste (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per edit request by at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion, the following rationale is provided by the requestor as well:

"This essay is supposedly about the old copy and paste box that used to appear at the bottom of the edit window, which in the days before JavaScript was widespread you would use to insert characters by copying and pasting them into the wikitext. The essay, in its entirety, consists of a statement that the box exists, a substitution of the interface message, and a statement that it may or may not appear depending on your preferences. I genuinely cannot tell what the supposed use of this page is, it doesn't provide any information that isn't in the interface message itself. These days the box is essentially redundant to the Edit toolbar, with this box only appearing on browsers that have javascript disabled. A rough count indicates that this essay currently has ~ 10 incoming links (that aren't maintenance related), about 7 of which were obviously intended to be targeting WP:COPYPASTE, one from another essay and the remainder being left in comments from the essay's creator. This was previously nominated for deletion in 2016, which was closed as no consensus. I propose that this should be either deleted or userfied, and this page and it's three redirects (WP:PASTE, WP:Paste, WP:Copy/paste) retargeted to Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources."  A S U K I T E  19:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: Two editors have proposed potential solutions at Wikipedia talk:Copy and paste, one being a rename, another userfication (note that the original creator has been indefinitely blocked). I would personally support a rename and perhaps expanding the essay to reflect the "no javascript" behavior if that gets traction (I'm not sure if I can officially as I submitted this, although it is on behalf of another editor). I can also see a valid argument in re-targeting the redirects WP:PASTE, etc, but I'm unsure if this is the right place to discuss that. (struck out: the correct place to discuss the redirects is WP:RFD) A S U K I T E  19:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Additional Comment: WP:Copy and paste has daily average of 1 view/day over 90 days, with WP:Copy-paste having 37 as of now. The title is demonstrably misleading, and WP:Copy-paste gets significantly more traffic, for what that's worth. For the editors who are stumbling upon WP:Copy and paste, we should consider whether it's because they are finding it by mistake, or because they find it useful. A S U K I T E  19:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I came across it by mistake, which is one of the reasons I've nominated it here. The content is largely a duplicate of Help:CharInsert, which also covers the section that you can copy and paste characters from but also covers the more modern javascript implementation and is generally much more useful in my opinion. (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, userfy, redirect or archive, but there is no reason to delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • keep and tag as {{Historical}} (possibly move to Help:) - Nabla (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

June 19, 2021[edit]

Draft:China COVID-19 cover-up[edit]

Draft:China COVID-19 cover-up (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Forum-shopping attempt to create a WP:POVFORK of material that has been rejected multiple times on WP:MEDRS grounds from parent articles (e.g., Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information). See also User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_7#Wikipedia:LABLEAKLIKELY Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep The topic is related but different. This article is not about the origin of Covid. It's about the Chinese cover-up. Sources include NYT, WaPo, AP, BBC, NPR, CNN, NBC, Time, and the Economist. First-rate news sources for a news topic. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete/Rename Broadly agree that this is at least in-part WP:POVFORK. Feels like it would at least benefit from a WP:NPOV rename. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
POV fork of what article? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Adoring nanny: see COVID-19 misinformation by China. ProcSock (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. You asked me this very same question a week ago on the talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that much of the material on suppression of research would be off topic for that article. The disputes with the US and Australia are definitely off topic. The material on the refusal to release line data is probably off topic. The fact that WHO rules require a report whenever medical personnel become infected is again of dubious relevance. The upshot is that although there is overlap, the topics are not the same. Furthermore, much of the material in COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China would be off-topic at the cover-up draft. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The fact that the draft contains such tenuously related subjects is simply a reflection of the fact that the draft was written as a hodge-podge of various anti-Chinese material. It's difficult to see any other connecting thread here, other than that this is a catch-all article for POV material that has been rejected (or which is already covered in a neutral manner) in other articles. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep The definition of Cover-up is "any action, stratagem, or other means of concealing or preventing investigation or exposure". Reliable sources explicitely say there has been concealing or preventing of investigation, ergo the name is appropiate. However, it is suspicious that the draft appears after the topic was debated with no consensus on other "mother" articles (I remember discussing it in "Investigations into...", for example), I propose the draft is: i) kept as short as possible; ii) checked to contain only high RS; iii) checked that all facts with political tones are adequately attributed and given NPOV treatment. If the author of the draft accepts to make themselves efforts in these directions, the allegation of a POV-Fork is greatly suppresed, IMHO. Forich (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with all of those, except for possibly "as short as possible". I've added everything I can see that's relevant, but I have no idea what may emerge in the future, or what others may add. I'll add that part of the reason I started the article is that concealing information is not the same as misinformation. The concealment of the line data from the early cases is a particular example. The concealment of this has been discussed by multiple sources. I never attempted to add it to any misinformation article because it's not misinformation. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I have elaborated on my support for the draft here. I discuss whether a POV-Fork tag is awarded, the title, among other issues. Forich (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Those trying to remove this page are pretending that the hypothesis has never been covered by any RS, ignoring that both Science and Nature have covered it, and the NYT has run a long series of articles about it. . Trying to remove this draft is the most absurd step yet--they are clearly out to supress even the attempt to write an article on it. The hypothesis may be wrong, but as it has been covered by RS it is hardly fringe. We shouldn;t be presenting the hyporthesis has proven right, or as proven wrong. And even when it is proven wrong, as I expect it will, it still needs to be discussed, because its a major chapter in the history of thinking about this disease. The nominator here is pretending that there is consensus that it can not be covered except by MEDRS quality sources, it has no place on Wikipedia. That's a biased and false interpretation of MEDRS.-- the true meaning of MEDRS is that we cannot say definitely it is right without MEDRS quality sources saying so, but nobody is proposing to do that. I am not certain whether or not we have MEDRS quality sources to say it is wrong, but that's irrelevant to discussing it both as a scientific hypothesis and as a social fact.
The motivation for their view escapes me. It can't be science, because science takes alternative hypotheses seriously until proven wrong, and even then continues to discuss them in full detail as examples. I can only suppose that they are saying that because the hypothesis was originally proposed by a group with a far-right wing bias, that it must necessarily be wrong, and so wrong we should pretend it has never been proposed and that no responsible publication has ever discussed it. This is the very opposite of science, of NPOV, of WP:V-- an unprecedented perversion of the encyclopedia.
I have never in 14 years here used language like this--there has never before been so misguided an attempt on WP to use science to pretend that history never happened, or to reject science becausee of the politics of those who propose an hypothesis. . (I see this off-WP all the time, almost entirely from far-right bigots and professional falsifiers of the truth.). DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @DGG: Sure you got the right MFD? This isn't about the lab leak. Whether there's anything here that would deserve a separate article or whether this could be covered in an already existing article is an entirely different question, one which I've frankly not explored much, but this isn't about the lab leak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
What I have said applies to all attempts to remove articles in this area. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@DGG: What is "this area"? Your entire argument above about the lab-leak hypothesis is completely irrelevant to the draft under discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
the area is, obviously, the lab leak hypothesis. The attempt to cover-up the investigation is one of the arguments for why the lab leak hypothesis might be worth considering. Personally, I'm not convinced it does provide strong evidence--the Chinese government tends to react this way to any potential criticism. But it's worth discussing as part of the suggested evidence. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Most of the draft isn't even about the lab-leak hypothesis. It gets a few mentions in the second half of the draft, but most of the draft is about supposed cover-ups of the initial outbreak. Reading through your reasoning above, I don't see much that's relevant to the draft we're discussing. You talk a lot about MEDRS, how the lab-leak is supposedly being censored throughout Wikipedia, but not about the contents of the draft you're ostensibly commenting on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: The topic is notable and widely covered by the media as well as peer-reviewed sources; besides, Adoring nanny has done a good job of sourcing it well. Far from being a POV fork, I believe it's good enough to be an article (if not now, at least in the future, as events unfold). An editor spoke of the title being POV; that is a different matter, and isn't a sufficient reason for deletion. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: As per above mentioned points shared by the participants. -Hatchens (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete/Wait Delete as POVFORK. This content is actually not that bad, it truly did occur almost an exact reproduction of COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China#Government_response with an explicit POV added in. The POV tone in the writing is particularly worrisome. I think with a more NPOV rewrite, it could stand alone and probably enter articlespace. Having seen the section I mentioned, I am swayed by the arguments of Thucydides411 below. I do not think this draft adds much of anything. This just feels like an attempt to avoid building consensus with the users in the aforementioned articlespace.--Shibbolethink ( ) 04:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC) (edited)--Shibbolethink ( ) 14:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink: A good deal of what the draft claims did not actually occur (see, for example, my comment below), or is presented in an incredibly selective and non-neutral manner. The true information is, for the most part, already covered in the article, COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Independently WP:NOTABLE topic worthy of a page. CutePeach (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Not convinced this is independently notable enough to warrant a stand-alone page (could it be covered in existing articles?), and the POV tone is horrible, but that's what a draft is for. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    @RandomCanadian: I would say that any information worth keeping can be incorporated into COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. This draft is largely a selective presentation of a few points already covered in that article, along with a few false claims thrown in (see my comment below for an example), written in a completely unacceptable POV tone. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    In that case (since I was not aware of the existing article), Delete- this is already appropriately covered in COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China#Government_response (including subsections about propaganda, censorship, whistleblowers, ...), without the poor POV tone. Editors should instead go to that article to try to resolve the noted NPOV issues there, instead of spinning this off to yet another POVFORK. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a part of a long long history of people creating a "controversy about X" page when they can't force changes into Article X due to NPOV, UNDUE, or other good reasons. I have yet to see any good come from these attempts. If the subject was notable, it would be part of the main page. I have serious difficulty figuring out how this subject can be covered in a NPOV manner. It is also hard to see how much real use it is to have a page to tell us that the CCP is made up of paranoid liars who reflexively cover up everything and attempt to control all news that comes out of the PRC. I assume that we cover this on the main pages about the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Republic of China. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is an obvious POV fork of COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. The article is written in an argumentative manner, and is a highly selective (and sometimes false) depiction of events obviously meant to push a certain POV. Just take this sentence as an example:

However, China did not report the outbreak at that time. Instead, the WHO noticed a media report of the outbreak on 31 December.

The "media report" being referenced here is actually coverage of the outbreak in official Chinese state media. CCTV (in Chinese) and CGTN (in English) both publicly announced the outbreak on 31 December 2019. To claim that China did not report the outbreak at that time is simply false, and to then refer vaguely to a "media report", without mentioning that it was a report by the country's largest state media outlet, is simply deceptive. The whole draft is like this.
The early days of the outbreak are already covered in COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. Rather than creating a separate article to push a particular POV about the outbreak, any DUE information should be covered neutrally in COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. But this draft is simply the worst type of POV-pushing. As I said on the talk page of the draft, this is the kind of thing that can be published on a blog, but it's totally unfit for Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: What we care about with a draft is that it is factual, neutral, and cited. Or we care that it is moving in that direction. Once confident that it is, then AFC reviewers, or others, will move it to be an article. Article space is where this discussion should take place, after acceptance, where the gaze of the full community is upon it. It is wholly inappropriate to delete it based on its topic when it is a draft. Once it is good enough to accept and once it is accepted, take it to AfD if you must. This is the wrong venue. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Timtrent: What if a draft is a POVFORK of an existing section, COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China#Government_response, and it is also even more poorly written than the existing section. What really needs to be done is for the main article to be trimmed to reasonable length, and spinoffs created as per WP:SPLIT, not as attempts to evade other, even more fundamental stuff such as the WP:NPOV policy... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    When submitted for review one hopes that the reviewer will spot this. Even if they do not and accept the draft, I view the correct venue to be either a requested merge or an AfD. I do not believe that MfD is the correct venue. Note, please, that I am making no comment on the draft itself, nor its contents, nor will I be drawn on that in this discussion. If I do that I will do it as a reviewer, within it, not within this MfD, or, possibly, later if it is accepted.
    A Draft must have a better than 50% chance of not failing an immediate deletion process in order to be accepted. Even those that do not are not often deleted at MfD, instead being allowed to wither on the G13 vine. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    I should have said "Spot this, if it is present" because I have not reviewed, nor done other than skimmed, this draft. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: Whether the laboratory hypothesis turns out to be true or not, it is clear that China has implemented a huge attempt to cover-up that it may have happened. It is enough to observe the block imposed on the research systems in publishing new studies on the subject without first having passed the scrutiny of the state control bodies. This should also be intuitive enough if you have a good understanding of China's behavior: whether something is true or not, it would never want its image to be tainted, like any authoritarian dictatorship in history. Just look at the behavior of the press on the documented cultural genocide of the Uighurs. --Francesco espo (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Francesco espo (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. What's the justification for having a deletion discussion about content in draft space? Is there anything here that is blatantly false? The rationale for this should be informing readers of facts. Whether the sky is blue is not an opinion, subject to point-of-view warring. This is a blatant attempt at information suppression and censorship. This is obviously not an obvious POV fork of COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. It is a WP:Summary style subtopic, a more detailed article about COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China § Government response. The main article is over 300K bytes which certainly justifies a more detailed article about the government response. wbm1058 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: The draft is a mess of SYNTH and POV issues. Whether enough of it is salvageable to be worth keeping it in draft space I don't know – I'm inclined to think it's better to start from scratch. It certainly should not be moved to mainspace in anything resembling its current form. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Ample coverage of this and enough of it to have its own article. This should be moved to mainspace. Dream Focus 18:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the topic is probably notable, and the prospective article is at least reasonable enough for draftspace. Should it be moved to mainspace, it may be reasonable to have a discussion at AfD on its merits, but it seems to pass the bar for MfD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    Keep, the title needs fixing and some prose changes for NPOV but that can be done in mainspace. Wikipedia is an WP:IMPERFECT encyclopaedia. Content with RS that should be included somewhere but doesn't fit into the other articles is being removed on grounds of 'not applicable to this article' while we vote to delete the article where it would be relevant? ... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep for now. The article title is bad as a "cover-up" implies that the event being covered up actually occurred, but we don't know that. However, China's general secrecy around the origins of COVID is notable. Even if the full chain of intermediate animal species were found tomorrow, completely disproving any theories that reflected poorly on China, it would still be highly notable that there were efforts to suppress the publication of research, censor discussion, etc around the pandemic. The COVID in mainland China article is huge and could benefit from information being moved into a separate article. However, it is clearly not finished at the moment and has a positively accusatory tone in places; if it were published as-is it would be a deletable POV-fork. User:GKFXtalk 20:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • keep per Adoring nanny rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment How is this topic any different from COVID-19 misinformation by China? Seems like the entire article could be merged into that one. Also, this will almost certainly be rejected on review for the absolutely egregious WP:NPOV violations, or will be instantly nominated at AfD and WP:TNT'd for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlb96 (talkcontribs) 04:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Did I actually forget to sign this post? That's a first. Mlb96 (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The difference that misinformation and hiding of information are not the same thing. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge in COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China - a neutral non-conspirational title that represents better reliable sources would be "CCP'sChina's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic", that is obviously a subtopic of the main article. The current draft doesn't even present these claims as such, but presents those beliefs as facts. Unsurprisingly, it's similar to with the lab leak hypothesis where the approach begins with a believed conclusion (Special:Permalink/1024906752, Special:Permalink/1024565970), etc. reminiscent of [1]. —PaleoNeonate – 06:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    I'd recommend choosing a different word than CCP, such as Chinese Government. Using CCP to refer to the Chinese Government is like using Democratic Party to refer to the US government. I can go into more detail on a talk page, if needed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    They're not actually the same. Since, I think by law possibly, the Chinese Communist Party is the only party that can govern China. This is not the same vis a vis the Democratic party and the US govt. And Jinping's power derives from being General Secretary of that same party, not from the ceremonial presidency. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    I also have concerns that the term is weaponized. I see and hear it in contexts where folks want to emphasize how "communist" China is, because being "communist" or "socialist" is this big scary thing. Would be happy to discuss this more on a talk page somewhere. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    Sure, I can understand that concern, but it's also a reasonable way of referring to the government of a single-party state, in much the same way that we might talk about 19th-century Austria-Hungary as the Habsburg Empire, or using the term "Mullahs" as a shorthand for the religious council that exercises real political power in Iran. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    Since communist or not was not part of the point I was making I have replaced it with China's, like in my original suggestion at the draft's talk page. Thanks for the comments, —PaleoNeonate – 15:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge into COVID-19 misinformation by China. The arguments to delete the article are largely based on the fact the article alludes to conspiracies on the origins of COVID-19. However, the article only mentions that very limitedly and is otherwise about the Chinese government's handling of the pandemic. I think in order to prevent a NPOV fork, it is necessary to delete this article and move the unbiased and relevant portions. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a notable topic. The page is a little more than a stub and in the right format. It could be a useful place for expansion for what is an overly long subsection of COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. As is, it could be merged, but not as it could become and if we don't let a page start how can it finish. I would like a more focused title, but that's not relevant here. Merge Page is far too close to COVID-19 misinformation by China Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
    The problem with that is that the topic of COVID-19 misinformation by China is too narrow. I actually proposed[2] a broadening of the topic of the latter article at an early stage. But it's a part of a series of misinformation by governments articles, so a rename would break the pattern. Not renaming excludes key information-hiding episodes. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
    Having one page for cover-ups and one page for misinformation confuses me, even though they are technically different. If this page was about delay in warning the world of covid-19 or covering-up the possible Chinese source of the virus, then I get it. But "all government cover-ups on covid" is too close to "all government misinformation on covid". That said I have no wish to be the person who keeps this argument going when I think the consensus is "keep": vote removed. Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis, discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_June_7 SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is not a good use of draftspace, and the authors’ objectives will be stymied by it being in draftspace, but “delete” is not the answer. No AfC reviewer will accept it if it is submitted. If anyone tries to mainspace it it will be AfD-ed as a POV fork, and in the meantime no serious Wikipedian will treat it seriously.
    Instead. Proponents of this draft should ensure that anything agreed is done in mainspace, but to the extent that this happens from the draft, this is poor practice with respect to attribution. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    “Delete” is not the answer because MfD is not a venue or forum for examining the real question. I suggest Close, in favour of an RfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge Strong no to deletion. WP:MEDRS doesn't seem to apply here, this topic doesn't really fall under the umbrella of "biomedical information". Probably should be merged somehow with COVID-19 misinformation by China, but not if that means being held to some absurd non-applicable standard. WP:MEDRS is for medical pages. Keep it there. If whistle blowers have been disappearing, whether or not it's in a medical journal shouldn't enter into the consideration of whether there is a RS.KristinaLu (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Evidence suggesting official interference in the scientific investigation into Covid19 origins has been in mainstream RS-quality news since so we have to document this, and a page dedicated to the topic I think is the best way of handling the matter. We might be best off renaming or merging the content, but I'm against using MfD to this end on drafts. The problems in the draft can be handled by normal editing and regular AfC process. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge: Strongly oppose deletion, but I prefer it to be merged with COVID-19 misinformation by China. The title certainly doesnt hold up to WP:NPOV Nyanardsan (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
    See this removal for example (not entirely wrong). No article exists that properly covers the subject of this article. When people add the content that is in here to other articles, it is removed as out-of-scope. That makes this MfD particularly bizarre, and makes the almost month-long discussion, especially when the consensus is quite clear, even more-so. If it remains unclosed for a full month I intend to move the draft to mainspace myself. No reason why the editing process shouldn't continue while discussion awaits closure, as it does for an AfD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
    I'm going to move this draft to mainspace, leaving the MfD banner at the top, for these reasons:
    1. An article with notability issues, POV issues, etc, should be sent to AfD. Pages are draftified only if they are promising but need further work for mainspace. The creator can undraftify the page, at which point it should be left in mainspace and nominated at AfD, as use of the draft namespace is not required by any policy. (see Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections) The arguments made in this MfD are AfD arguments (NPOV etc).
    2. It has been outstanding for a month. A closure request has been made, and a notice placed at AN, but there seems to be no prospect of a closure anytime soon.
    3. If this were nominated at AfD, it would be permitted to remain in mainspace (with a deletion notice on the top) and for editorial work on improving the article to continue until there was an affirmative consensus to recommend a different action. The default state for a newly created article is that it gets to remain in mainspace. That state changes only if: a) the article is eligible for CSD; or b) consensus is found to take another action. This prospective article does not qualify for CSD.
    4. The creator has indicated they want it in mainspace, where it would be more productive to collaborate and get this draft to meet NPOV. There is a clear numerical consensus here in favour of keeping the draft, but a willing admin closer has not yet been found. There is no policy to suggest it must be kept in draftspace until that happens, and frankly such a situation is untenable as it would be akin to using draftify + MfD as a new form of 'article quarantine', a concept that consensus does not support.
    5. Events and coverage come out related to this article which are perfectly suitable for inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia but are removed from existing articles on the basis of (apparently) not being 'within that article's scope'. Indefinitely keeping this draft in a suspended state is thus harmful to readers.
    ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete fork of COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. - Nabla (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was neutral on whether to keep this in draftspace, but in article space it is clearly unacceptable, a hopeless mess of POV and verifiability issues. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: A related AfD was created for COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. Cunard (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge Blatant WP:POVFORK. Many of the keep votes based off that it's a draft are no longer relevant as this was moved to mainspace (note I would still support deletion in draftspace as this page title has no hopes of meeting NPOV). Content not already covered in COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China and/or COVID-19 misinformation by China can be merged. Jumpytoo Talk 02:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Not a fork. The article has potential to attain important study material on the subject. Sgnpkd (talk)
  • Keep I won't say that the title is ideal, but we should have an article on the censorship and suppression of investigations into COVID-19 undertaken by the Chinese government. This isn't exactly the same subject as the dubious lab leak hypothesis. Absolutely no one denies that information was suppressed by the Chinese government, and many news articles have been published on the subject. This draft should be kept and potentially moved into mainspace.Katemeshi101 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Katemeshi101: The article has already been moved into the mainspace. The title is certainly the most non-ideal part of the article, and needs to be changed to something more neutral and specific, but really it should be merged with COVID-19 misinformation by China. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 04:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin?[edit]

User:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

While we allow a wide leeway for opinions in user essays, they are not a free ticket to bypass WP:MEDRS for biomedical claims, which the origin of the Covid-19 virus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. 21:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. 21:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. 21:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 21:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

--Shibbolethink ( ) 21:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics deletion discussions. 08:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

--SilverMatsu (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Whether/how MEDRS applies to COVID-19 origins in the mainspace is a controversy in itself, see, e.g. [3]. MEDRS is even less relavant when the page in question is merely a personal essay of mine in the userspace. Normchou💬 15:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    You should be first to request deleting it because your essay makes a mockery of the hypothesis you seem to support. My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    If there is any mockery, it's a mockery of those who utterly failed to grasp the real world as an independent person. Normchou💬 14:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    On the other hand, the comment above this one is a clear mockery of basic requirements of civility (which are not something limited to Wikipedia but also to the actual real world) and also of the fact that Wikipedia is an collaborative project which must be run in a spirit of mutual respect (see the opening paragraph of WP:NOT). Not in a spirit of casting aspersions on other editors. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is what appears to be a humor essay masquerading as a serious one. Links to John Stewart diatribes, a parody of Bayesian inference... No WP:MEDRSes to speak of. Only opinion pieces and OR. It's also claiming that it's a matter of common sense that Virologists have a "COI" and we shouldn't trust scientific sources on this questions. Instead we should rely exclusively on the author's preferred sources (opinion pieces and yellow journalism), which the community has repeatedly decided are less reliable and of lower quality. And yet, this essay is a textbook example of why the very next section applies, WP:NOCOMMON. We have discussed this before, and decided as a community that this is not what wiki is supposed to be. It should follow, not lead. If the scientific sources are wrong and driving us off a cliff, we will follow, because it makes us right more often than not. It feels like every time we have a new pandemic, we must rehash and relitigate these same WP:FLAT arguments. Very similar things happened with Zika in 2015 and with Ebola in 2014. In the last two months, it is only the news coverage that has changed, not the underlying facts. Only more aspersions, speculations, and opinions, very few facts. We must use the most reliable sources available for these questions. Wikipedia is not a free forum for conspiracy-laden evidence-free speculations.--Shibbolethink ( ) 16:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Aside from the numerous distortions in your above statement—any user can read my essay and make a judgment on whether your accusations are valid—you own reply here shows you are not treating this piece merely as a humor essay masquerading as a serious one. You realize that my common-sense argument makes sense, so you try to discredit it by raising objections to its premise. It is perfectly acceptable to have good-faith arguments regarding my essay, but trying to erase it simply because you disagree is not. Normchou💬
This is the most unconvincing counterargument I could imagine. I was wondering whether to !vote to delete or keep this, because as long as it's in userspace, it's not really harmful (it just shows how well the author understands the subject). After reading this, however, I'm convinced that this is not a simple case of some inability to understand the subject, but actual POV pushing in essay form. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a free forum for conspiracy-laden evidence-free speculations...thank you, I needed a good laugh this morning. Hyperion35 (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait/Keep There is an active RFC on whether the MEDRS applies to the origins of COVID-19 as mentioned by Normchou (which seems to be leaning against it). Zoozaz1 talk 17:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Zoozaz1: If you look at the RfC question, it asks only whether "origins of a disease are unambiguously a bio-medical topic". This is strictly unrelated to an essay which ignores even the basics of WP:RS and makes broad-ranging WP:FLAT claims as an attempt to suggest we should ignore not only MEDRS but even WP:RS (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    My focus was on MEDRS as the deletion nomination was exclusively about violating MEDRS, which is not a settled question. That being said, so what if it challenges WP:RS? It's a userspace essay. Speaking as a strong supporter of the policy, someone challenging any Wikipedia policy with the goal of making the encyclopedia better should be allowed (within reasonable boundaries, of course). Essentially no policy (outside of civility policies) should be so set in stone that there is no place for dissent/disagreement from it because ultimately, even if it might be hard to see in a particular instance, that is how our policies improve and evolve over time. Oral history projects are a great example of where our RS policy may fail.
    For this particular instance, I generally agree with DGG below. Ultimately, it either came from a lab leak or it didn't, and I believe it is wrong to shut down differing opinions on the issue. Others editors have brought up that this is advocacy; of course it is. An essay, according to Wikipedia, is an argument. Every essay advocates for something, and that's absolutely fine. My problem is when we deem one particular argument acceptable and a different, still plausible, argument unacceptable. Now of course one hypothesis is supported much more in reliable sources, but again, so what? This is not a definitively settled issue, and people should be allowed to express differing opinions on it in userspace even if those opinions depart from the majority viewpoint. Zoozaz1 talk 01:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete The author's response to Shibbolethink's !vote above has convinced me that this is a WP:ADVOCACY. It's basically a POV-pusher's argument, in essay form. And the math... Dear god, no self-respecting encyclopedia should allow that travesty called math to remain anywhere within its bounds. The assumption of a conspiracy among scientists to suppress The TruthTM is really just the icing on the cake.
As a final point, the essay suggests we use "common sense" when editing articles on Covid-19. I actually agree with that. Common sense tells us that the scientists have a firmer grasp of the realities than the press, and so far, it seems to be almost entirely the press who's pushing the lab leak theory, and those rare few scientists who have supported it have all either A) qualified their statements to the point that the press' insistence that they support the theory is questionable; B) turned out not to have relevant expertise, making their opinions no better than anyone else's or; C) already been known as conspiracy theorists within the scientific community.
With those basic facts in mind, WP:COMMONSENSE tells me that we should treat the virus origin the way the vast preponderance of scientists with relevant expertise treat it; as a highly-unlikely possibility. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep User space is user space. We also have the excellent essay WP:NOLABLEAK, which is a fine precedent, and my own essay User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely. Let them all bloom! And Bayes Theorem, which is the basis of that essay, remains perfectly valid mathematics. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete User space has some leeway, yes. However, Wikipedia is not a debating forum or an advocacy website. It's a collaborative project. Essays which attack the fundamental policies of the project by engaging in blatant WP:ADVOCACY in an attempt to discredit them, which even suggest that the whole of scientists are engaging in a conspiracy, and which make a travesty of mathematics... are, plain and simple, not acceptable, and only further the case that the author needs a break from this topic area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    The content of the WP:ADVOCACY page strongly suggests that it is not meant to apply to userspace, it is meant to apply to article space. Your reference to WP:FLAT below fails for the same reason, as that applies to article space, not userspace. And criticism of Wikipedia policy is 100% permissible in userspace as long as it is done respectfully. Your arguments would create a very strong case for deletion if this were an article, but it isn't. Mlb96 (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    Nowhere in any of these pages does it say that the advice therein is limited to mainspace, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX certainly applies everywhere. Also, the spirit of the policy is far more important than the letter, and I'm not convinced that saying this applies only to articles is correct even if you can provide an out-of-context quote to the contrary. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    It doesn't need to be explicitly stated when the implication is obvious. For example, the title of WP:FLAT is "Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat." This implies that it is meant to apply to things claimed by Wikipedia (i.e., things in article space), not by Wikipedia's users. WP:ADVOCACY talks about the goal of Wikipedia being to create "high-quality, neutral, verifiable articles," and the things that the policy is intended to prevent are "edit-warring and other disruptions." None of these apply to userspace. It should be abundantly clear that neither WP:FLAT nor WP:ADVOCACY apply to userspace, even if they do not explicitly say so. And your citation to WP:NOTSOAPBOX is puzzling, as that policy very clearly states that "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages." This essay presents the user's opinions on Wikipedia policy, at least to the extent that it would satisfy the precedent set by Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Adoring_nanny/Essays/Lab_Leak_Likely, so WP:NOTSOAPBOX does not apply. Mlb96 (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    That all seems like Wikilawyering to me. "Non-disruptive statements of opinion" - this is not a "non-disruptive statement", because its clear aim is to disrupt our coverage of the topic by directly arguing against WP:PAGs. If WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NOTWEBHOST "don't apply to userspace", then we should also go and get rid of WP:U5, cause, you know, "doesn't apply to userspace". So your argument is pretty much a useless distraction. Like the lab-leak itself. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is bias here, and the bias is in those proposing to remove the article. When I saw the preceding MfD, I said I had never seen such an unparalleled attempt on WP to shut off discussion of a topic . This is far worse, almost to the point of parody.. This is worse because it is an attempt to imposer sa particular narrow orthodoxy on not only what the encyclopedia can include, but on what can even be discussed here about what should be included. The deletion proposal is entirely antithetical to the very idea of science and of a NPOV encyclopedia, or of civilized discussion of any sort. The question of what we should cover can always be discussed, and any heretical views can be expressed that are not outright bigotry (and in user space, there's a very wide tolerance for even that) . The proposal to remove this essay--that is outright bigotry. It's the very essence of bigotry, a refusal to admit even the possibility that one might have been wrong, and a refusal to let anyone who disagrees with oneself expres their opinions. . Ift here ever was censorship here, this is it. If there ever was prejudice and bias and POV editing here, this it. If there ever was an attempt to make us look foolish in the eyes of the world, this is it. If there ever was an example of the harm that could be done to the encyclopedia by editors who have lost all sense of proportion, this is it. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    @DGG: Have you even read the essay or are you just arguing to make a point? The essay literally begins by quoting a satirical comic show, then makes a parody attempt at Bayesian probability, before arguing that WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RS should be conveniently ignored because "scientists are an unethical bunch full of conflicts of interests" (if that isn't WP:FLAT, I don't know what is). It then complains about "unfair treatment" of editors who go out of their way to irritate fellow contributors, by making dubious essays and attempting all sorts of other, non-consensus building activities... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I never said I agreed with the essay, but yes, I do think that even that opinion can be expressed. And I would say that scientists who try to supress the opinion of the public about their work--even the most benighted opinion of the public about their work, are acting in defiance of the norms of their profession. Fortunately, most scientists do nothing of that sort, except that a few seem to be trying to do it on WP. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an individual's userspace. Wikipedia:Verifiability is not required in userspace.
"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable."
No policy or guidelines have been presented why this page should be deleted. --Guest2625 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The policy is WP:NOTWEBHOST" "Wikipedia pages, including those in user space, are not personal web pages. Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia."
You can't create an essay that consist of arguments as to why Hitler was a great guy (which he wasn't), why The Princess Bride is a great movie, (which it was), why we should hire you, or why the holocaust never happened. You can't use Wikipedia to host material that is pro-choice, pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gun, or your claim that the Moon landings were faked. You appear to believe that you can put anything in your userspace. No. You can't. You can only present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. This essay isn't even close. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Guy, there is for almost all of these a connection with how we present these issues in WP. This is especially true when written in connection withs actual editing in mainspace or article talk space. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
One indent level per reply, please. Would you venture to guess what the consensus would be if I were to post an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) asking whether the opinions in the above list have "a connection with how we present these issues in WP" and therefore are allowed in userspace? I have strong opinions on a number of topics which I never talk on Wikipedia other than staying away from articles where I might have trouble remaining neutral. In your opinion, would Wikipedia be good choice for a free web host to present these strong opinions to the world? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The examples you gave are fundamentally different. The moon landings being faked is supported/deemed plausible by exactly zero reliable sources and will never make it into the encyclopedia. The others are just expressing opinions on political issues which are quite irrelevant to Wikipedia (which does not give political opinions) and which therefore fails WP:NOTWEBHOST. This essay is advocating for a specific piece of information, that is at least vaguely plausible, to be included on Wikipedia and I have no problem with that at all. Zoozaz1 talk 15:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The above argument (many things are not allowed in essays but this specific thing is allowed) is a perfectly reasonable argument. I may not agree but we are both arguing within existing policies. DGG's argument (that pretty much anything is allowed in an essay) is not reasonable and goes against multiple existing policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Addendum: Concerns have been raised that the essay violates the policy What Wikipedia is not. Specifically,
"Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia."
Volteer1 below has addressed this concern by noting the following quote from the essay
This unique WP:COI editing issue, if unsolved, is bad for Wikipedia, which relies heavily on scientists and their publications to provide information on COVID-19.
The essay presents information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. No convincing argument has been provided for why this essay in an individual's userspace should be deleted. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Guest2625: in your view this satisfies the requirement that the page should "primarily" be presenting such information? Alexbrn (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry for the confusion. The essay as a whole passes the requirement as "presenting information relevant to the work on the encyclopedia". I highlighted "primarily" as an aside that Wikipedia also has room for humorous non-work related essays. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The word "primarily" is, yes, part of the policy, and you didn't answer my question. I therefore assume from your !vote you do think this user-space item is primarily presenting information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. Alexbrn (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes. That is correct. This essay is presenting information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. However, I was also stating that the policy clause even has room for essays in userspace that are not relevant to work on the encyclopedia. I am interpreting "primarily" to mean that most of an individual's userspace pages should be work-relevant; however, some userpace pages can be non-work-relevant. It would be in error if this policy was used to delete humour from wikipedia's userspace. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
That seems like either WP:WL or a misunderstanding, as if you're reinterpreting "they should be used primarily" to mean "a majority of them should be used". By your reading it would be possible to have (say) 5 pages of relevant content allowing a "free hit" page of personal blog or company advertisement. This goes against the onward text of the policy which says user pages should provide "a foundation for effective collaboration". Do you believe the page under discussion provides such a foundation? Alexbrn (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I was discussing "primarily" specifically in regards to the phrase "relevant to work". Most of an individual's userpages should be work-relevant; however, some of an individual's userpages can be, for instance, humorous or light-hearted wikitrivia of little work-relevant benefit.
It would not be possible to have a "free hit" page, a personal blog page, or company advertisement. Wikipedia has policy and guidelines which do not allow these types of userpages (e.g. WP:Attack, WP:UP#GOALS, and WP:UP#PROMO, respectivley). A new concern that you raise is that the essay violates the What Wikipedia is not policy clause:
"The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration."
The essay provides a foundation for effective collaboration. If one wishes to know more about the editor's views, they have provided an essay which presents their opinion in a friendly and collaborative fashion in their userspace. If one is not interested in the editor's opinion one can also avoid reading their userspace opinion. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Guest2625: There's a very large difference between legitimate criticism of policies to further improvement of them and pieces whose sole purpose is to dispute those policies to push a point of view. Wikipedia is "an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect". This essay is not a means to that end: it shows disinterest in building a "high-quality" encyclopedia, it shows disinterest in mutual respect (of other editors, of scientists, of policy), it shows disinterest in the fact that Wikipedia is not a blog, and it shows disinterest in collaboration (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). To that extant, there's no justifiable reason to keep this, unless we're also going to allow userspace to become Blogspot 2.0. And that's not going to happen. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep We had essentially this exact same discussion before at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Adoring_nanny/Essays/Lab_Leak_Likely, and the general consensus was that users have very wide discretion to do what they want in their own userspace, at least as long as there is some tangential relation to Wikipedia. This essay does have a tangential relation to Wikipedia, so it should not be deleted. Mlb96 (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep (1) Users opinions should not have to please others. Readers can judge for themselves the validity of this opinion. (2) MEDRS should be for issues that affect health. No one is going to get better or sicker based upon where the disease came from. (3) There are large, large number of issues that affect the likelihood of a lab leak. The number of people traveling from bat caves to Wuhan. China's various censorship, jailings and "disappearances" of critics. The reasonableness of the wet market claims. Conflicts of interest among many "scientists". The recent emails of many scientists. Attempts to mislead readers as to who was writing a journal letter. The significance of any of these. Virologists are no better at determining the significance of most of these than the next person. In some cases they are less so. The significance of these are largely matters of opinion, not mathematics. (4) This is part of a large pattern of users being reverted, censored, deleted and banned on this issue. 2601:5C4:4301:217C:50A8:1452:FBBC:C5C (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC) 2601:5C4:4301:217C:50A8:1452:FBBC:C5C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    That's not how it goes on Wikipedia. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Guy Macon's reasoning about WP:NOTWEBHOST and You can only present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia, which singlehandedly destroys every piece of Keep reasoning written here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Did you actually read it? This unique WP:COI editing issue, if unsolved, is bad for Wikipedia, which relies heavily on scientists and their publications to provide information on COVID-19. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah right, let's just remove everything scientists say from all articles about science, since they have a conflict of interest. And then let's write whatever we want that has nothing to do with improving encyclopedias, and add a single sentence that does, justifying all the offtopic editorializing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:RANDY ascendant!. Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, as I said the essay is very bad, but it's not just one line that's directly related to Wikipedia: One suggestion is to use WP:COMMONSENSE when editing articles on COVID-19 origins. A related suggestion is not to exclusively rely on "peer-reviewed scientific journal articles" for sourcing purposes. Ridiculous? Yes. Off-topic? No. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I mean, that particular line just makes it clear that there are also some CIR issues here, although admittedly I have to question whether competence has ever truly been required to edit Wikipedia. Hyperion35 (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, just as we kept Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Adoring_nanny/Essays/Lab_Leak_Likely. Edit: I've struck my Keep !vote, as the pertinent issue now seems to be Normchou's topic ban, and I don't know enough about the breadth of that topic ban (or TBANS in general really) to comment on how it should apply to pre-existing userspace essays. To be clear I still don't think there's a policy based reason, (potentially) outside of their topic ban, to delete the essay. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The arguments in the essay are very bad, but this is well within the leeway we allow in userspace. The essay doesn't violate policies like WP:NOTWEBHOST or WP:NOTADVOCACY, you are allowed to make on-topic essays in your userspace even if you argue them badly, and there is nothing even remotely tangential to medical advice readers could try and extract from it.
As an irrelevant note to people calling this a "travesty of/called mathematics", while that shouldn't really be relevant, it is not true. The math here is correct, albeit unnecessary and (probably intentionally) obfuscatory when the only purpose it serves is to cement the intuition that if "an outbreak of a novel coronavirus disease is first detected near a lab that studies novel coronaviruses", your credence that it leaked from a lab should be higher than before you knew that fact. Bayes theorem is exactly correct, and his application of it correct, the problem is just that when doing bayesian inference you can update priors off a very limited amount of information, plug in random numbers, and get out really any result that you want; this kind of thing only serves to misleadingly bolster what is a very simple and mundane point. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - Guy already said it, there are blog hosting services out there and Wikipedia isn't that. —PaleoNeonate – 10:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per WP:NOTWEBHOST, user pages should present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia and I found the information presented on this page very relevant for my work here. CutePeach (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a forum. Wikipdia is not an opinion site. At least, in theory and according to the rules that seem to get ignored whenever it's popular or politically convenient to do so. Generally speaking, user essays should be allowed, but not if they violate Wikipedia's rules and especially when the entire point of an essay is to violate multiple rules and act as a soapbox for conspiracy theories. I had strong opinions about the last US elections, would I have been allowed to write an essay about it? There are plenty of politicians and government officials who I think are liars and crooks, but Wikipedia is not the place for me to write an essay about that either. I have strong feelings about the F1 race I just watched, but Wikipedia is not the place for that either (by contrast, an essay about the proper way to cover the race would be appropriate). Hyperion35 14:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not your blog. We open a can of worms by allowing heavily opinionated essays like this to squat in userspace.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment It is also worth pointing out that the NOLABLEAK essay, in contrast to this one, is primarily aimed at providing a repository of sources, as well as relevant PAGs, for the purposes of building better and more accurate articles on the subject, and specifically building articles in ways that fit within those various PAGs. It is an example of why user essays exist, as it assists us in building better articles. By contrast, this essay is primarily an opinion. To the extent that it says anything about building better articles, it explicitly advises against Wikipedia PAGs, in ways that would objectively make articles worse.

    And make no mistake, people WILL take essays like this and pretend that they are official PAGs, just look at the number of times that people have pretended that there is a real rule requiring three good sources to keep an article at AfD (there is no such rule, there was a user essay on the subject, one that has since been pulled back to userspace, I think). So sure, keep this essay, if you're willing to deal with dozens of people citing it as a reason to ignore PAGs when writing articles, and the inevitable drama that will follow. Sure, edit-warring by CIR editors egged on by a lowest-common-denominator user essay is exactly what I woke up this morning thinking Wikipedia was lacking! Hyperion35 (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. The essay is ridiculous and only portray its creator in a negative light, but it is not a violation of any policy. It may became a violation (and probably will be deleted) if the user will be topic banned from the corresponding subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Overlooking for a moment that it is a user space, nowadays there is an overabundance of material that guides us to the hypothesis of a laboratory leak, whether they are official sources or simple logical reflections on the large and evident attempt to cover up of the matter. I am not speaking only of Chinese organs, but also of leading international figures, just look at the Andersen case: He publicly denied that the virus was engineered and after 9 hours he wrote privately to Fauci that it could have been. I don't want to push any particular theory, especially that of genetic modifications, but the circumstantial evidence is really too much and the absence of minimally decent evidence in favor of a zoonosis now weighs a ton.--Francesco espo (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Francesco espo (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Your argument is wrong on many aspects, including the Andersen emails (about which you're spreading misinformation, see this from Politifact). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    So what? There is also an overabundance of material that guides us to the hypothesis of astrology, homeopathy, creationism and so on. The problem is that the quality of all that material is not high enough to make Wikipedia articles say, yes, homeopathy works, or yes, the lab leak is probably true. Is moving the profringe advocacy to user space the right solution? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    RandomCanadian i don't know what to do with your sources, i have experienced these events firsthand, i was there. Politifact is the same one who was able to define the lab leak theory as "pants on fire" last year, and then run miserably for cover in the last month after having demonstrated that it has implemented a disinformation campaign for over a year. Andersen publicly said that Cotton was crazy for speculating about the lab leak and after 9 hours he privately wrote to Fauci that maybe the virus could be engineered. Full stop. And please, stop tagging me as a SPA. It is rude and unprofessional. --Francesco espo (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    The only thing that is rude and unprofessional is you trying to get your opinion above that of the sources. Politifact and the BBC are reliable, (see the relevant article) and they, as well as other sources, describe how those emails have been misinterpreted. You have no valid reason to dismiss them. As for the Andersen email, the sources and the scientist himself clearly describe it as a preliminary hypothesis, before proper application of the scientific method ruled it out. Now stop engaging in OR. What you or I think about it is irrelevant, and you should not use Wikipedia to spread your own opinions, especially not when you self-admittedly also run an advocacy website on the subject, giving you a clear conflict of interest. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    RandomCanadian the sources are not the word of God, they are written by humans like you and me and, as they have shown, they have not been able to understand anything about the theory of laboratory leaks for over a year. Now we're looking at their goofy U-turns. Really reliable on that one! My site is totally ad-free, I don't make any money from it, I had to build it to overcome the enormous censorship present almost everywhere in the past. At the time it could not be talked about on Facebook, partly on Twitter, obviously zero on Wikipedia, fot newspapers was all about conspiracies, and it was bad enough for those who experience science firsthand and just need some sort of investigation to reveal the truth. Can you call it COI? If one day you push like us for an investigation and find out that a zoonosis has occurred I'll be a happy boy and apologize to the other fence of thinkers, but please, let's argue and investigate, don't censor! Francesco espo (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    It doesn't really matter whether the sources are factually correct or not. Reliable sources reflect the best understanding of authoritative and learned figures/bodies as of the time they were written. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that summarises secondary sources. Editors who have novel thought, research or investigation to share should do so by contacting a reliable media outlet or scholarly journal to get their work published. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    That is ok in theory but in practice editors like you and RandomCanadian want to censor some sources so that Wikipedia presents only your POV. These selfish choices are not in favor of the world population who read wikipedia. Many RSs and even MEDRSs published addendums and corrections, but that doesn't effect Wikipedia editors like you, RandomCanadian and the OP of this discussion that have just made an edit to Drastic Team claiming that they are "promoting COVID-19 conspiracy theories". I hope that those closest to this discussion understand what is going on here.--Francesco espo (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Of course we have opinionated stuff in userspace, and it is about Wikipedia. Oh well, Wikipedia is a good place to look up things like nucleotides. Art LaPella (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • No offence but this is surely just trolling? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's trolling, doing bayesian analysis for what would otherwise be a very simple point and plugging in random numbers is a common thing people do on the internet. See for instance "Is Bernie Sanders a Crypto-Communist? A Bayesian Analysis", argued in good faith by Bryan Caplan (which I can't link to because econlib is blacklisted). It is, unfortunately, a thing. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
"Random numbers" are for demonstration purposes only. People are free to use their own conditioning, plug in their own degrees of belief, and get their own results. Or they can just use common sense. Unfortunately, some Wikipedians here seem unable to do either. Normchou💬 04:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, if the numbers are made up, and people are free to inject their own beliefs, then it sounds like this essay falls under WP:NOTMADEUP. Hyperion35 (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Which is irrelevant to an essay in userspace because WP:NOTMADEUP is a content guideline associated with the article namespace. Also, what people think/do when reading something on WP (whether it's an article or an essay) has nothing to do with any community policy or guideline, and is none of your or my business. Normchou💬 06:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
You keep doing that, and it is becoming a serious problem. WP:NOTMADEUP says:
"Wikipedia is not for things that you and/or your friends made up. If you have invented something in school, the lab, your garage, or the pub, and it has not yet been featured in reliable sources, do not write about it on Wikipedia. Write about it on your own website, blog or social media instead."
You are reading far too much into someone's decision to add a page to a particular category. Yes, we especially don't want things that you and/or your friends made up in articles because that is what the readers see, what is indexed by search engines, etc., but any reasonable person reading that would conclude that Wikipedia -- all of Wikipedia -- is not for things that you and/or your friends made up. Policies that are for articles only usually start with "Wikipedia articles are not for..." instead of "Wikipedia is not for...". Again, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UPNOT specifically prohibit you from hosting things that you and/or your friends made up in your user space. Get your own website, blog or social media account and post the things that you and/or your friends made up there. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Re we especially don't want things: Who are "we"? Per User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles: "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." I thought everyone was here because of a clear understanding of WP's principles, but now I see what is really going on. Normchou💬 17:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe Guy was using "we" as in "the project of wikipedia" AKA "all editors" in a casual fashion. I don't really see any reason to read a "cabal" into that. WP:TINC certainly applies.--Shibbolethink ( ) 17:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Guy Macon what would convince me of there not being a cabal here is putting COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis [4] through an AfD and not seeing all the same names show up. CutePeach (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
You mean, because specific editors are interested in a topic and happen to have somewhat similar opinions that means there is some sort of "cabal" among them? I just don't see how that makes any sort of sense. Zoozaz1 talk 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." (Benjamin Franklin) I can imagine scientists reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them, but that wouldn't require the secret communication of a cabal. Art LaPella (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete per the WP:NOT policy, applying in all namespaces. Specifically Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, WP:NOTOPINION, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to spread the 'original thought' of its editors, doubly so when that thought is misleading. Editors seeking to get their opinions on Wikipedia should contact a reliable source to get them published. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a free web host, particularly for screeds that argue for the undermining of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Normchou Normchou is indefinitely topic banned from COVID-19, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Note that WP:TBAN states the following: "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed"." This means that further edits to this page by the OP are not allowable. However, I don't think that alone constitutes an argument for speedy deletion, since TBANs cover future edits and not previous ones.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
...Which means that I, or anyone else, could delete the content of the page and replace it with an essay based upon the material at User talk:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak. Normchou would then technically not be allowed to revert the edit. In my opinion, that would be unfair, and if I noticed such a thing I would revert the edit.
I am going to make an official decision in my role as King of Wikipedia:[Citation Needed] Normchou, may offer an opinion regarding whether this page should be deleted without violating their topic ban. But only on whether the page should be deleted, not re-arguing why you think you are right. If anybody complains, tell them that I said so, preferably with a citation to a reliable source that supports my claim to the throne.   :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I'd like to point out that there's precedent for banned users having troublesome COVID-19 related talk-space content removed (though I think these were instances of total bans, not topic). A list of pro-lab-leak links comes to mind as the most notable example. I would agree it should not be an automatic/default blanking of talk-space content, but it should be taken into account if the content is problematic. Given the explicit linkage to the topic user was banned for (it's not a general 'use common sense' essay, it's a 'COVID-19 lab leak because common sense' essay), and that the essay was written after the ArbCom case was filed, I think this is justifies labeling the content as inherently problematic enough to delete. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I count 10 deletes and 11 keeps so far, though that might change now that there is a TBAN. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
While the WP:VOTE count is noteworthy, my understanding is it shouldn't be the primary determining factor in the decision. Policy arguments can (should?) outweigh votes. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Exactly right, Thus my "for what it is worth" comment. I expect the closer to come to a conclusion about whether and how WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UPNOT, WP:MEDRS, and WP:NOCOMMON apply. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Leaving aside the somewhat unfocused discussion above, the relevant site policy applying to this material is WP:USERPAGE, which states in part that userspace pages may not contain "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive)."
    It's arguably legitimate for Normchou to express his opinions, however misguided or statistically unsound, about the origin of Covid-19. But the page in question goes further, and vilifies virologists by implying a conspiracy on their parts to suppress investigation into the lab-leak hypothesis. The essay would probably pass muster (as misguided but allowable) if the "conflict of interest" section were removed, or edited to be less blatantly conspiracist.
    Separately, as a practical matter, Normchou has been topic-banned from pages related to Covid-19 indefinitely via WP:AE. His topic ban renders him unable to edit the page, and it should probably be removed on that basis alone. MastCell Talk 18:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I do not think this is a Wikipedia:Attack page. Should it be deleted because of the topic ban? I am not sure because the topic ban does not apply retroactively. But in any case, why would anyone care (or should care) about his essay? Just let it be. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    • It just seems weird, and untenable, to leave a page in Normchou's userspace that he is forbidden to edit because of his topic ban. MastCell Talk 19:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Weird, yes, maybe, but it does not bother me, and it would not bother me at all even if I were a virologist. My very best wishes (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
You make a compelling point for keeping the essay text up (I can't think of a counter-argument that doesn't end up with troubling consequences for otherwise benign orphaned pages). Perhaps the conversation might be better shifted to the WP:LABLEAK redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 19#Wikipedia:LABLEAK. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The essay clearly includes material related to editing Wikipedia. Also, WP:WORTH says that "Writings that contradict policy are somewhat tolerated within the User namespace.", which tacitly imply that essays in user space do not necessarily need to adhere to policy. I can see this essay as a useful step towards a reform to the use of reliable sources when a particular scientist is suspected of conflict of interest. This is the case with the review (a MEDRS) written by Shi Zheng-Li on COVID-19 origin in which she exonerates her lab of all responsibility. If we were to strictly follow WP:MEDRS, if the journal considered that her declaring no COI when publishing that review was Ok, we are not qualified to override their decision, and should also believe there is no COI. However, by common sense, we have chosen to be cautious citing that paper. With the case of Peter Dazsak possible COI, we also lack the tools to do anything but trust that RS are wiser than we are in dealing with his statements being non-COI. Perhaps, this essay will lead to a discussion in which editors can reduce the weight given to scientists currently under investigation of COI charges (that seems to be happening with Daszak this week, with the Lancet editorial that asked him to declare againg possible competing interest to a previous letter, or him being recused from a team investigating the origin). If we supress this essay we would hurt the inputs that would ultimately be used in those future discussions, even if the community is to decide that our current policies are fine, the preemptive censorship of ideas is against the collaborative spirit of the Wikipedia project, in my opinion. Forich (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Material related to editing Wikipedia should be broadly related - not just related to a user's displeasure with a consensus, lack thereof, etc. While Wikipedia should be tolerant of viewpoints and not sanction users over the views they hold, that does not mean that a user is free to use their userspace to merely act as a blog to discuss their viewpoints. Merely including a few points that are somewhat related to editing Wikipedia does not make an essay appropriate. Furthermore, when a user has now on two occasions shown that they are not able to edit constructively in a topic area, it seems that any keep rationale based on the fact that it's "related to editing Wikipedia" falls flat - if someone can't edit constructively (and in this case has been topic banned a second time), they shouldn't be permitted to use their userspace to attempt to bring people along with their unconstructive editing style. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even close to a hard decision. Normchou being indefinitely topic-banned from COVID-19 topics alone should be sufficient, without even touching violation of the MEDRS guidelines and the misuse of Wikipedia as a substitute blog. As well, the Warriors Fighting For Free Speech, For Freedom are in the wrong place. --Calton | Talk 07:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete We should not be a webhost for personal conspiracy theories, doubly-so for now-banned users. ValarianB (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Jon Steward is not an expert on the topic, for starters. In general, this page is not relevant to the encyclopedia and would be best housed on the user's personal blog. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • comment This page mentions Bayes' theorem, but what is the probability that a coronavirus will occur in nature and cause a pandemic?--SilverMatsu (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
It keeps happening again and again.
Many coronaviruses cause disease in animals. Seven are known to cause disease in humans, and all seven appear to have animal origins. Four of the seven (229E, OC43, NL63, and HKU1) cause 15-30% of cases of the common cold, and occasionally cause bronchiolitis and pneumonia, which can be fatal in the elderly and those with suppressed immune systems.
Three of the seven human known coronaviruses cause severe -- sometimes fatal -- respiratory infections. They are:
  • SARS-CoV-2 (late 2019)
  • MERS-CoV (2012)
  • SARS-CoV (2002)
--Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Just to add to this, coronaviruses appear to be highly promiscuous zoonoses. SARS-CoV-2, for example, has features that have often been characterized as suboptimal for infecting humans, but "good enough" for infecting a wide variety of mammals (including, obviously, humans). It's sort of like how in sports, you might have a guy who can play one position and play it very well, and you might have another guy who can play multiple different positions, but he's not the best guy for any of them. The second guy often has a long career across a wide number of teams because they can slot him in just about anywhere that they need an extra player. Coronaviruses are like that, they're the "utility infielder" of viruses. They're not as specialized as viruses that infect only certain specific species, but their ability to cross species barriers makes them exceptional candidates for emerging zoonotic diseases, and zoonotic diseases tend to be deadly because we have no existing immunity, and also because viruses that cross species barriers tend to behave in unpredictable ways (for example, Ebola probably doesn't cause acute hemorragic fever and death in its natural host population, although we haven't definitively located it yet).

Coronaviruses and influenzaviruses are the two main groups of zoonoses that epidemiologists and public health workers have been worrying about, and those worries have been here for several decades now, it's why people panicked about SARS, MERS, Bird Flu, and Swine Flu, all in the past 20 years. Basically, according to the experts, a deadly worldwide respiratory zoonotic virus pandemic has always been a matter of "when" not "if". Also, these things don't have any sort of "double jeopardy" rule, and this current pandemic does not mean that we "reset" and get another century until the next one. If the next coronavirus outbreak is sufficiently different from SARS-COV-2 to get past our vaccines, or if there's a new and incredibly dangerous variant of influenza, we could easily find ourselves doing this all over again in another decade or two if we are not vigilant. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. This time it was natural vs. lab, so I should have said it on "the earth". And I overlooked thinking about "when". And I don't sure if this essay (A simple calculation) takes these conditions into account.--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
By the way, does this discussion need to be listed in the Mathematics deletion discussions ? --SilverMatsu (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete Apparently, the essay needs to be related to working with wikipedia, and this essay isn't related to it.--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The two main arguments for deletion both fail to pass muster:
    1. WP:NOTWEBHOST—the essay does in fact primarily present information relevant to work on WP.
    2. WP:MEDRS—It is not at all obvious, and there is no consensus[5], for the claim that MEDRS applies to the origins of COVID-19. Stonkaments (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Neither of those arguments is convincing to me either, but they're also sort of beside the point. The material fails WP:UP#NOT, specifically by vilifying groups of people (in this case, virologists and scientists). More to the point, since Normchou was topic-banned for disruptive editing around Covid-19, I don't see how keeping an inflammatory set of his assertions on the topic in his userspace is helpful to the project in any way. And since he's not allowed to edit the page anymore, anyone else can come in, change the page, and Normchou wouldn't be able to do anything about it. All in all, this seems like an untenable situation on a practical, common-sense level. MastCell Talk 21:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Raising the issue of potential biases and conflicts of interest among virologists is not vilifying them, especially considering many reliable sources have highlighted these same potential biases and conflicts of interest[6][7][8][9]. As for keeping a user's subpage that discusses a topic from which the editor has been topic-banned, I agree that it's a little weird, but that doesn't strike me as a satisfactory reason to delete it. Stonkaments (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Stonkaments sums it up well, but also because we kept the other essay. People can make arguments we disagree with, and I personally believe Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHOUGHTPOLICE. Levivich 19:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - same as User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely, which was also kept at MfD. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep; how many times must we have the exact same argument? Which circle of Hell are we trapped in? Suffer not the misinformatsiya and disinformatsiya to live... in all seriousness, I can't imagine meaningfully distinguishing between "essays" (essays we agree with) and "screeds" (essays we disagree with) -- at that point, why don't we just abolish userspace entirely, or make every userspace page go through an AfC process where the Council of Proper Thought needs to sign off on it? Boy, that'd be fun!!! In the meantime, getting into arguments with people about politics and then prowling around their userspace to find things you can nominate for deletion seems to be pretty bad form. jp×g 18:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't much understand it, but it's not harmful (some people act like even talking about some aspect of the lab leak theory without immediately calling it a conspiracy theory will cause their mom's teeth to fall out and their house to burn down). --Animalparty! (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:USERESSAY - According to Wikipedia policy, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." These are similar to essays placed in the Wikipedia namespace; however, they are often authored/edited by only one person, and may represent a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia or its processes (e.g., User:Jehochman/Responding to rudeness). It can be contradictory, it's strictly a personal POV. Relative to POLEMICS - nothing. It's an essay in user space - a topic ban cannot be retroactive as was already pointed out above - he just can't edit it or talk about it while under the t-ban. Lab leak? Circumstances of the debate have changed according to NBC. Even when there's no smoking gun (yet), we handle it just like we did with the Russia collusion theories, we included them all and we cite the sources. The lab leak theory is a notable and relevant topic that has gotten worldwide attention. Atsme 💬 📧 00:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the TBAN is indefinite[10]. So unless Normchou successfully appeals, he can never edit this user essay or its talk page.--Shibbolethink ( ) 00:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Largely because of the rather convincing arguments presetned by Stonkaments & JPxG. The argument presented at the top is of course no applicable, MedRS does not cover this. I am also not seeing any inappropriate use of user space here or use of it to attack people. Just a user essay. While rather unfortunate that the creator was infinitely topic banned from covid, as well all know indefinite is not the same as infinite and that is not a legit reason to delete. So baring any policy based arguments, of which I see shockingly few, I see no reason to delete. PackMecEng (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST, as far as I can see this is basically just an excuse to ramble on about nothing for a few paragraphs, and is only masquerading as related to the project. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - At face value, it's indistinguishable from pseudoscience. It doesn't matter whether some parts of it might be true, it's still pseudoscience. The use of Bayesianism is a specific form of modern pseudoscience associated with Internet "rationalism". Wikipedia's purpose is not served by hosting pseudoscientific essays. Grayfell (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Grayfell: I'm not sure what you mean here. Bayes' theorem is very well-known among mathematicians and programmers (who use it often; Bayesian Network Classifiers (Friedman 1997) has over 6,000 citations). If you think that Normchou has applied it in a stupid or incorrect way here, that's fine (I am not an expert in statistics and can't vouch for their reasoning), but to be casually anti-science in this way makes no sense to me. jp×g 04:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
There is no anti-science in Grayfell's comment. It's just that certain legitimate scientific and technical concepts are widely appropriated by pseudoscience proponents.
So if you see someone talking about...
  • Lines of energy / energy fields
  • The second law of thermodynamics
  • Quantum mechanics
  • One-time-pad
  • Blockchain
  • Computer model
  • Bayesian probability
  • "Supporting the body's natural ability to..."
...they may be a sceintist or engineer talking about the real thing, but the odds are that they are someone spewing out incredible amounts of bullshit with a sciency topping. Which this essay's use of the phrase "Bayesian" clearly is. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Bayes' theorem is not in itself a valid argument for or against anything. It's just a formula which takes some input probabilities and calculates other probabilities based on them. The input probabilities are things which are usually easier to calculate/estimate than the output probabilities. It is very much subject to the garbage in, garbage out principle: if the input probabilities are very wrong then the answer will also be very wrong. Here there is no basis whatsoever for the input numbers, as Normchou made them up, so the outputs are also just Normchou's personal opinion. However presenting them in a sciency way with lots of equations makes it look a lot more convincing than one person's personal opinion, in a way which can be easily exploited by pseudoscience proponents. Hut 8.5 12:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, this is what I was trying to get at. Bayes' theorem is a mathematical toolbox, and like any tool it can be used or abused for different purposes. These tools are widely abused to make something seem more scientific than it actually is. This essay is another example of that abuse. That's why I described it as pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - While I don't really agree with the argument I think discussion in userspace is ok Tim333 (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UP#POLEMIC. This essay has very little relevance to Wikipedia at all, it's just an attempt by the author to advocate their own opinion on a topic which has nothing to do with Wikipedia but which they'd like to see in Wikipedia articles. If that is an acceptable use of userspace then there's nothing to stop people writing essays advocating their opinion on any topic whatsoever, since Wikipedia's aim is to cover the whole of human knowledge. Furthermore the logic used in the essay is completely antithetical to that actually used by Wikipedia, since it starts with some original research based on numbers the author made up before moving on to arguing that Wikipedia should disregard the scientific consensus on scientific topics (contradicting WP:UNDUE / WP:FRINGE). Hut 8.5 15:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I do have to disagree with the idea suggested below that the essay should be kept because it's "contextualised in terms of editing Wikipedia". This essay is only relevant to Wikipedia in that it advocates giving greater weight to the author's POV in Wikipedia. If that's enough then userspace essays can be used to advocate almost anything. A creationist could write a userspace essay advocating creationism and justify it by saying they want to see more creationism in scientific articles. A supporter of a politician could write an essay about why that politician is so great and justify it by saying that Wikipedia's coverage of that politician should be more positive. Hut 8.5 16:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • This relates to my comment below, so I will reply here. The comment was in reference to why NOTESSAY does not apply (not as part of a keep !vote) since it explicitly excludes essays in userspace. Polyamorph (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Normchou can perfectly use his space as draft/sandbox or to manifest his POV. Essay is succinct, it does not take a lot of space. Topic contained is pending scientific concensus and still hotly debated and cannot be labeled ad fringe. Sgnpkd (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Three points: First, Normchou currently topic banned from Covid-19. This essay was written as an extension of the kind of behavior that lead to a topic ban. Even if Normchou changes his POV, he cannot update his essay, nor can he even correct any errors. Therefore this isn't even an accurate manifestation of his POV.
Second, using pseudoscience to come to conclusions is still pseudoscience, even if those conclusions may, eventually, turn out to be correct. In this sense it is WP:FRINGE, and fringe content interferes with Wikipedia's goals as a fact-based encyclopedia.
Third, since Wikipedia is not a webhost, nor a platform for original research, nor a social networking platform, this essay is not in line with Wikipedia's goals or policies and doesn't improve the project, nor does it even directly discuss how anyone would improve the project. Grayfell (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is the wrong place to host essays that are not themselves about Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing in this essay is relevant to working on the encyclopedia and therefore it fails WP:WEBHOST. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Possible webhost violations, and the user is tbanned from the essay topic dudhhrContribs 00:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete These sorts of personal opinion essays don't belong on Wikipedia. This is just the sort of thing that resulted in their topic ban in this very area. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:UPGOOD, personal essay in userspace that holds zero weight in any discussion. People are allowed to express opinions, even if they are wrong! In some sense at least this lays bear the users' bias.Polyamorph (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    Being in user space does not give carte blanche to write whatever one wishes. See WP:UP#GOALS: "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)". This essay ticks of, at the absolute very least, the first two of those... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    Of course it doesn't, especially in the case of harmful/abusive content. But this is a users' opinion related to wikipedia content. Users are entitled to free expression, even if it is a minority viewpoint. Polyamorph (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Because it is in userspace.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTWEBHOST....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    NOTESSAY explicitly exempts essays in userspace. Polyamorph (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
    Never let page content get in the way of a good shortcut. Levivich 05:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
    Well, it says (Personal essays on Wikipedia-related topics are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki.) I don't really think this fulfils that criterion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
    The essay is contextualised in terms of editing Wikipedia. You might not like what it says, but NOTESSAY certainly does not prohibit it. Polyamorph (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
    If the other lab leak essays are editing-related, then so is this one. If an argument that something is WP:FRINGE is editing-related, than the counterargument that it's not FRINGE is also editing related. If "no lab leak" is editing-related, then so is "yes lab leak." (Same for flat earth, fake moon landing, whatever.) It doesn't matter how good/bad the argument/counterargument is. We can regulate topics but we can't regulate viewpoints on those topics. (Which is why we shouldn't have essays about why topics are or are not fringe. But in my view we've made that sickbed and now must lie in it.) Levivich 12:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
    They're slightly distinct in my eyes. One has 50 references to high quality sources on a specific matter hotly debated on talk pages for over a year and provides a comprehensive summation of arguments. For the most part, it does not make any original claims, and most claims are cited to a source. Hence it has a project-improvement purpose. The other is the author doing their own novel Bayesian analysis on probabilities they made up, and also citing themselves (As Normchou pointed out in January 2021), and the only thing actually cited to a reliable source is one short sentence about a BLP having a COI.
    It is not that inherently any essay that argues for a lab leak is contrary to policy, but this specific one happens to be. And somehow most essays created to argue this specific viewpoint happen to be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
    The essays are very distinct in my eyes and I agree with your analysis of this one. What I disagree with is deciding whether a userspace essay should be deleted based on the quality of the argument it makes. I think when it comes to userspace essays, we should be content-neutral, we shouldn't delete an essay because we disagree with or aren't persuaded by or don't approve of or don't like its message. If a topic is related to Wikipedia, then all views on that topic should be allowed in userspace essays, regardless of how well sourced or well argued the view is. Otherwise we are engaging in censorship: allowing people to write essays about a topic but only if we agree with/are persuaded by/approve of/like it. That the "foo" essay makes a good argument and the "not foo" essay makes a bad argument is not a good reason to delete "not foo." It's a good reason to ignore it, but not deleting it. I actually think deleting this page is more harmful to the project than the page itself. The precedent of censorship is harmful in my view, but the essay is harmless (particularly because it makes such a poor argument). Levivich 14:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
    I do believe that PR's whole point was not about the quality of the argument, but about the very obvious focus of it. WP:NOLABLEAK is focused on editing Wikipedia. This essay is focused on arguing in favor of the lab leak. It doesn't provide any resources for editors and doesn't cover common arguments on WP about the subject. It just argues (incredibly badly) that the lab leak is likely. Even if it were incredibly compelling, instead of incredibly bad, it would still not be about editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I gave this one a lot of thought. I nearly wound up on the keep side of this, erring on the side of not policing userspace except when egregious, but after reviewing the content and rereading our guideline on the subject, I find it hard to come down anywhere but delete. Here's why: WP:UP#GOALS outlines how we don't permit Writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. From the outset, it's hard to see this essay as "closely related" to Wikipedia's goals regardless of the rest, in that it's largely a plea to use common sense about a subject irrespective of those pesky Wikipedia policies. But I'm specifically looking at the line Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.) - If this were a careful outline of an argument to include material on the lab leak theory, citing sources that have been deemed undue, etc. that would be one thing, but it combines a dismissal of basic policy with original research (a mathematical exercise based on made up numbers, for example) such that it has "virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project". The subject may be why this is attracting a lot of attention, but the subject is ultimately not relevant here. It might as well be some fan theory about Game of Thrones based on common sense, with fabricated probabilities, and "so that's why Wikipedia should consider a reliable source" tacked onto the end. (Not to trivialize what is ultimately an important subject by comparisons to fiction -- I'm making a point that the subject is secondary in [at least my] decision to come down on the side of delete.) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - User Essays are an important part of Wikipedia. Unfortunately Normchou has been the subject of targeted and specific editing attacks by other users who adamantly dismiss the various lab leak theories, despite the WP community having already discussed these at length and reached consensus they are valid for inclusion in mainspace. The grounds proposed to delete this user essay is that it doesn't adhere to WP:MEDRS, but no reasoned argument with any justification or evidence has even been made as to why it *should* adhere to WP:MEDRS(!),.. and as other editors have pointed out there is ongoing debate with regards to the extent in which WP:MEDRS should apply to mainspace. I can therefore only come to the conclusion this is yet another targeted editing attack against the user by other editors pushing their POV, and I am committed to fighting WP:CPUSH regardless what editing space it exists in! Aeonx (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe that this essay now qualifies as "closely related to Wikipedia's goals" per WP:UP. As the SNOWing AfD demonstrates, the lab leak hypothesis is no longer considered WP:FRINGE but is rather held by a significant minority; productive debate is healthy regardless of what side you fall on. He ultimately advocates for a change in Wikipedia policy, which is very relevant regardless of how likely said change is to be implemented, so the essay is not simple political advocacy. -- King of ♥ 20:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Since the author himself is topic-banned from his own essay, he cannot contribute to any productive debate. He cannot discuss any changes to the essay, either. Since the essay is in user-space, nobody else will be able to edit it, as any changes would misrepresent the author's intent.
Whether or not some versions of the lab leak hypothosis are fringe, the essay's methods are fringe. Therefor, the essay's version of the hypothosis is fringe. Likewsie, using fringe methods to support a non-fringe conclusions is still fringe, and this is precisely why pseudoscience interferes with Wikipedia's mission as an encyclopedia. Further, this is a problem which cannot be proprly resolved, since, again, the author is topic banned. Grayfell (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I did consider the fact that the author is topic-banned, but ultimately, I just don't see the benefit of suppressing one particular viewpoint from public view. The application of Bayes is mathematically correct, and I don't think the author ever tried to argue that the probability of a lab leak is actually 50%, but rather that a going from a uniform likelihood to a biased likelihood will change the posterior distribution even as the prior distribution is held constant. -- King of ♥ 02:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates