- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Handbook of COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Handbook of COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment. Nomination for AfD: non-notable handbook. 94.178.234.44
Nomination on behalf of IP. -- ( talk) 12:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete no significant independent coverage. b uidh e 14:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Can anyone tell me why the IP user keeps his anonymity while s/he is allowed to mess around with wikipedia with another user (Tyw7) as intermediary? Is this accepted practice? A link to a wiki document tell where this practice is affirmed would be useful. Magnovvig ( talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @
Magnovvig:, yeah, check
WP:AFDHOW, which says
If you are unregistered, you should...note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process
. Tyw7 was merely performing the last stage as instructed. Sorry about that. —— SN 54129 15:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)- Thank you @ Serial Number 54129:. IP user seems childlike. I contradicted him on one of his edits, then he nominated for deletion. Sheesh. Magnovvig ( talk) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @
Magnovvig:, yeah, check
WP:AFDHOW, which says
- Userfy/Draftify per
WP:ATD. It may not pass our notability guidelines as it stands, but time might tell: something that is
claimed to
summarize...applicable methods for treating COVID-19 patients – especially critically ill patients – while serving as a point of reference for other countries battling the pandemic
is only likely to become more, rather than less, notable by our standards. —— SN 54129 15:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC) - Delete or Draftify: No evidence of notability, and no evidence that this particular book will inevitably become notable just because it has a topic that other publications could also have as their topic. -- Closeapple ( talk) 21:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Misses the point, fyi: the difference is rather that between a Haynes Manual for the Ford Fiesta and the original blueprints. —— SN 54129 13:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Other than the current popularity of the main subject, there is no other reason why anyone think of this book. I don't see any notability and it has been mainly promoted by propaganda outlets like CGTN. Mohanabhil ( talk) 13:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete or Draftify: I have seen links to it from multiple non-Chinese medical societies, but those do not constitute significant coverage. They are not reviews. It does not pass WP:BOOKCRIT or WP:WEBCRIT. -- MarioGom ( talk) 16:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Additional independent reliable source from Spanish newspaper La Razón ( [1]). I think it is still not enough to prove notability though. -- MarioGom ( talk) 09:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I could not find significant coverage from independent sources. The random mentions are not from generally reputable sources. Natureium ( talk) 16:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- The article has been substantially amended since the discussion started, with the addition of significant and notable references. As a result, the above discussion is obsolete and a new discussion should be initiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnovvig ( talk • contribs) 2020-04-09 06:46 (UTC)
- Keep: With the addition of five references, the article now has seven independent sources of noteworthiness. This is more than enough significant independent coverage to satisfy any impartial arbiter.
Magnovvig (
talk)
06:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- I am skeptical of the reliability of the new sources. The German and Spanish articles don't have bylines and I wasn't able to find any information on who runs the site. We have to be extra careful to use only reliable sources because of the WP:MEDRS implications. Indeed, none of the independent sources is medrs compliant, which is a serious issue. b uidh e 08:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Now the article contains improper synthesis opinions of Wikipedia editors about whether someone ("he" — can't tell if it's about a reporter or a letter writer or a Italian politician) was ignorant of a particular Wikipedia article and some other news story. And I still only see 2 or 3 sources that are even plausibly WP:SIGCOV in the references, after days of digging by multiple Wikipedians. That sounds like WP:TOOSOON. -- Closeapple ( talk) 08:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Closeapple, removed the sentence -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 10:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Subject glaringly lacks independent notability. It's one more attempt to upload a bunch of peripheral, typically non-notable items under the notablity wings of the main subject. This is why one has to search high and low for sources. There are many guidew, handbooks, and so on, about the current, world-wide health crisis and they have their place in the respective articles. A stand-alone article serves no purpose. - The Gnome ( talk) 15:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Handbook of COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Handbook of COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment. Nomination for AfD: non-notable handbook. 94.178.234.44
Nomination on behalf of IP. -- ( talk) 12:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete no significant independent coverage. b uidh e 14:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Can anyone tell me why the IP user keeps his anonymity while s/he is allowed to mess around with wikipedia with another user (Tyw7) as intermediary? Is this accepted practice? A link to a wiki document tell where this practice is affirmed would be useful. Magnovvig ( talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @
Magnovvig:, yeah, check
WP:AFDHOW, which says
If you are unregistered, you should...note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process
. Tyw7 was merely performing the last stage as instructed. Sorry about that. —— SN 54129 15:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)- Thank you @ Serial Number 54129:. IP user seems childlike. I contradicted him on one of his edits, then he nominated for deletion. Sheesh. Magnovvig ( talk) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @
Magnovvig:, yeah, check
WP:AFDHOW, which says
- Userfy/Draftify per
WP:ATD. It may not pass our notability guidelines as it stands, but time might tell: something that is
claimed to
summarize...applicable methods for treating COVID-19 patients – especially critically ill patients – while serving as a point of reference for other countries battling the pandemic
is only likely to become more, rather than less, notable by our standards. —— SN 54129 15:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC) - Delete or Draftify: No evidence of notability, and no evidence that this particular book will inevitably become notable just because it has a topic that other publications could also have as their topic. -- Closeapple ( talk) 21:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Misses the point, fyi: the difference is rather that between a Haynes Manual for the Ford Fiesta and the original blueprints. —— SN 54129 13:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Other than the current popularity of the main subject, there is no other reason why anyone think of this book. I don't see any notability and it has been mainly promoted by propaganda outlets like CGTN. Mohanabhil ( talk) 13:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete or Draftify: I have seen links to it from multiple non-Chinese medical societies, but those do not constitute significant coverage. They are not reviews. It does not pass WP:BOOKCRIT or WP:WEBCRIT. -- MarioGom ( talk) 16:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Additional independent reliable source from Spanish newspaper La Razón ( [1]). I think it is still not enough to prove notability though. -- MarioGom ( talk) 09:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I could not find significant coverage from independent sources. The random mentions are not from generally reputable sources. Natureium ( talk) 16:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- The article has been substantially amended since the discussion started, with the addition of significant and notable references. As a result, the above discussion is obsolete and a new discussion should be initiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnovvig ( talk • contribs) 2020-04-09 06:46 (UTC)
- Keep: With the addition of five references, the article now has seven independent sources of noteworthiness. This is more than enough significant independent coverage to satisfy any impartial arbiter.
Magnovvig (
talk)
06:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- I am skeptical of the reliability of the new sources. The German and Spanish articles don't have bylines and I wasn't able to find any information on who runs the site. We have to be extra careful to use only reliable sources because of the WP:MEDRS implications. Indeed, none of the independent sources is medrs compliant, which is a serious issue. b uidh e 08:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Now the article contains improper synthesis opinions of Wikipedia editors about whether someone ("he" — can't tell if it's about a reporter or a letter writer or a Italian politician) was ignorant of a particular Wikipedia article and some other news story. And I still only see 2 or 3 sources that are even plausibly WP:SIGCOV in the references, after days of digging by multiple Wikipedians. That sounds like WP:TOOSOON. -- Closeapple ( talk) 08:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Closeapple, removed the sentence -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 10:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Subject glaringly lacks independent notability. It's one more attempt to upload a bunch of peripheral, typically non-notable items under the notablity wings of the main subject. This is why one has to search high and low for sources. There are many guidew, handbooks, and so on, about the current, world-wide health crisis and they have their place in the respective articles. A stand-alone article serves no purpose. - The Gnome ( talk) 15:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.