Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 Case-Cluster-Study

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 Case-Cluster-Study

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It will suffice if this paper is mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Germany. It doesn't make sense to create a Wikipedia article for every paper on Covid 19. Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just any paper on Covid-19. In fact, there isn't ven a paper yet. This study is a part of a massive PR campaign to change policy on the pandemic in Germany. The bulletin has gathered international media attention. The German article documents already quite well. I will expand this article ASAP. Fossa _?! 17:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fossa,

the article shouldn't be expaned it should be deleted. Yes this paper drew media attention, but everything releated to this paper should apper in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Germany
As you already explained it'ts not even a paper. The German article should be deleted too no matter how detailed/long the article is. I am only contributing to the English language Wikipedia, I won't nominate the German article for deletion. Wikipedia won't get any better if we create an article for every paper. Maybe a paper that was the foundation for a nobel prize should have it's own Wikipedia article (e.g. Albert Einstein or John Nash). Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of being finished or not, or if its final content has any value, there is enaugh coverage that WP:GNG is satisfied. Agathoclea (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—WP:NOTNEWS. An unfinished study doesn't satisfy WP:MEDRS so the content in its current form is unsuitable for merging to the Germany outbreak article or anywhere else. b uidhe 05:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Again: This is not only a study, but a major media campaign. Its "results" have been cited all over the world and it is used in politics. This is less a "scientific" lemma then a campaign lemma.Fossa_?! 15:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The study's results are a form of biomedical information and need MEDRS quality sourcing. Judging from the dewiki article there is a lot of media buzz but a lack of solid MEDRS sourcing that would explain the quality of the result. b uidhe 17:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - If (BIG IF) MEDRS really has this implication then there is something seriously wrong with it and it has to be fixed. Else we get to a stage that an article cannot quote a newsreport about the death of a man after the roof of a hospital collapsed. Agathoclea (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the article on the German Wikipedia is much longer and better referenced. We should expand the article from there with appropriate references, not just delete it - there is too much content on the German wiki to move it into just the main pandemic in Germany article IMO. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the original author of the dewiki article. It is not meant to be an article about the study itself in the first place, but the presentation of the first results were the reason for a big media and political confusion. If you need any help in enwiki to expand it, just contact me. --Rennrigor (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article in its present form is not offering any value to the reader. Keeping it as a separate page will serve the purpose of promoting an unfinished "research". Lordofthesky (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofthesky (talk • contribs) 06:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Lordofthesky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - The user has made 7 edits to this point, six of them to 4 AFDs. - BilCat (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Just because an article exists on German Wiki, doesn't means it must exist here as well. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extensive and in-depth coverage in many mainstream media - that includes both scientific and political commentary by big names in either area. This is well beyond WP:NOTNEWS already, even before formal publication of the study. Almost all available sources are in German and no one has done the difficult work yet of porting all that info, but that in no way is an argument for deletion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. It's way too early to say that this one study deserves its own article just because it's getting a lot of attention right now. I agree with other voters who say this information should merely be a part of the COVID-19 in Germany article. JimKaatFan (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The study has some issues but it is highly notable in Germany and no doubt it will remain a frequent reference in the future, regardless of whether the results are confirmed or not. Lots and lots of Germans base both the danger of Covid-19 and the spread of the infection in the country mainly on this study. It's one of the most important driving forces behind the easing of the lockdown.--walkee^talkee 12:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info: on May 4, the authors of the study presented the final results as a pre-print. Those final results confirm what was presented at a press conference back in april. However, even the final results are contested by media and other scientists. --Rennrigor (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This English version is simply terribly written and does not explain anything. Please compare with German version of this page. This is an important story and important study. Here is good publication about it, and there are follow-up publications, like this [1]. This is still a developing story, apparently. My very best wishes (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now there is no consensus about whether or not this passes NOTNEWS
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep but also Weak Merge- It's part of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, as part of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, I would also recommend merging the article into the COVID-19 pandemic "main" article. JTZegers (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That - is not helpful... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Has received significant coverage as per WP:GNG, so warrants inclusion on wikipedia. Whatever people think of it or whether or not it "gives value to the reader" isn't relevant. People who are saying it should be removed as it is unfinished - The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith and The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides were also not finished. I guess we should remove these also? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Their finished as far as they aren't being worked on anymore. Wealth of Nations as we have it is a final product. As in, Adam Smith isn't going to come back from the grave and add more to it. It's doubtful it would have gotten an article when he was still alive and working on it though. Which is the case with this IMO. Also, it's pretty hokey overall to compare Wealth of Nations to a Covid-19 study. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.