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

The result of the discussion was: delete. The arguments for delete outweigh the keep. Dinglelingy and Guest2625 this is not the place to discuss editor conduct. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

COVID-19 lab leak user and draft space POVFORKs

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User talk:50.201.195.170/COVID-19 lab leak theory ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Arcturus/Lab leak ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete: Clear and unambiguous WP:POVFORK about a WP:FRINGE position, this already exists in mainspace as a redirect to a subsection on the proper article, here. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note to closer: I have added two pages to this nomination afterwards; I think that if this is deleted then both of these pages should equally be deleted for the same reasons as the content is also substantially similar in nature and in intent (in the case of the IP page, it is per the edit summary attribution an older but exact copy of the draft nominated). Feel free to extend the discussion if you believe that there was insufficient time to discuss these additional nominations. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Additional note: User:Arcturus has expressed their wish for the relevant page to be deleted here. The closing admin is free to handle this information however they think appropriate. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Additional additional note: Per information posted here (and summarised on the threat at WP:AN, as well as the specific report on WP:ANI), there is distinct evidence some editors might have been covertly canvassed by User:ScrupulousScribe. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, is a POV fork of here; the existing article has many eyes on it, whereas this draft fork has been edited by an editor that had to be topic-baned. Maybe in a few years, we will know what happened (or maybe not), but at the moment, there is no evidence to support this, and there is a lot of conspiratorial and fringe theories circulating looking for Wikipedia to help validate them. Britishfinance ( talk) 17:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, I agree with RandomCanadian and BritishFinance. The World Health Organization debunked the lab leak theory this week [1] [2] [3], so this content is becoming unambiguously fringe. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment/Keep: Your sources say the theory is "Highly unlikely", not that it's debunked. WHO is also not the final word on such topics. "Highly unlikely" theories do have their place on Wikipedia, such as the Solutrean hypothesis. To suggest that even a "Highly unlikely" hypothesis/theory is automatically to be filed with disinformation is heinously manipulative based on personal agenda. The better solution would be to make misuse of the theory as disinformation a subsection of the existing article. Horizons_1 ( talk / contribs) 19:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you rarely edited Wikipedia, were you notified about this discussion? Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 01:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete as a WP:POVFORK about a fringe topic by a topic-banned user blocked for violation of said topic ban. — csc ^-1 01:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Just as a note, this was created before the imposition of the topic ban, and I don't know if it had any implication in the imposition of said topic ban, though it clearly is a sign... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note - COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis (now a redirect) and its talk page are altered copies from this older draft. — Paleo Neonate – 03:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  With other copies at User talk:50.201.195.170/COVID-19 lab leak theory, User:Arcturus/Lab leak. — Paleo Neonate – 01:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete as per nominator and other editors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Never going to make it into mainspace. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep As this page is the subject of some ongoing controversy it would be better to keep it as stands given that there are also ongoing state and NGO investigations into the possibility of a laboratory leak. The topic definitely deserves a page of its own and it highlights Wikipedia's impartiality and lack of bias, so Keep. The statement by Novem Linguae "The World Health Organization debunked the lab leak theory this week" is not correct, they merely shifted the onus to Wuhan Institute of Virology to answer the as yet many unanswered questions ^[1] (just 50 there alone) and some members said they would not be pursuing the investigation themselves. However, yesterday Dr. Tedros clarified that no hypotheses would be discarded and all would be investigated: ^[2]

  “Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded, I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study"

  ^[3] Billybostickson ( talk) 07:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  We already have COVID-19 misinformation, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, — Paleo Neonate – 08:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• weak keep & rename to Accidental Lab Leak Hypothesis controversy. I disagree that this is a conspiracy theory or dis/mis-information. Intentional leak hypothesis would fall under conspiracy. Accidental leak would be a controversial position but not a conspiracy or misinformation. It is relevant article because a natural outbreak is yet to be established. The virus seems to have mysteriously appeared in Wuhan, in the middle of China, with no clue or trace about where it came from, & is surprisingly well adapted for human to human transmission unlike other bat viruses when they make a direct jump from bats to humans J mareeswaran ( talk) 17:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete as POV-fork cruft cluttering up the Draft space. We cover this adequately in COVID-19 misinformation. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Addendum The items added to the nomination later should also be deleted. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I disagree with the comment by XOR'easter as the COVID-19 misinformation article seems to conflate the bio-weapon theory with the lab leak theory in quite a devious way. Not sure how this happened but in the meantime we should definitely *Keep this draft page as it helps shed light on the issue in a much clearer way than the current bizarre section on the redirect page. Billybostickson ( talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC) (You already !voted Keep once. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)) Dear Boing! said Zebedee If you came here because someone asked you to, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Thank you for your attention! reply

• Keep

The fact this is even in question only demonstrates that Wikipedia is completely compromised and has no scientific integrity at all.

Awhile ago one of the authors involved with these papers contacted me but I didn't look too hard since everyone at the time was saying the same thing; however, this Washington Post editorial over the weekend

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/05/coronavirus-origins-mystery-china/?arc404=true

reminded me of the fact there are several peer reviewed papers arguing for the viability of a lab origin that are not mentioned here. When the author first wrote me, he mentioned Wikipedia's clear and inarguable censorship of scientific research, and talked about working with reporters to expose Wikipedia's collusion with the CCCP to suppress the peer reviewed research.

Looking over Wikipedia's guidelines, it is beyond argument that passing peer review is the gold standard for inclusion in a Wikipedia page. Why have all of these articles below been excluded from Wikipedia entirely?

If it is not pressure from the Chinese government, what reason does Wikipedia have for excluding research that has past peer review in sound scientific publications?

These are the papers, in order of publication. They have all been peer reviewed, this is Wikipedia's gold standard, is it not? What is being missed here? I'm going to have the author send the reporters working on stories about Wikipedia doing direct censorship for the Chinese government to this page now, let's see how long it takes for these papers to be added to Wikipedia.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmv.26478

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000240

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1

https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/fvl-2020-0390

Please link where "other factors" than passing peer review are weighed, where is that in writing? That first paper is then cited by several other of the peer reviewed papers. Lots of peer review, but Wikipedia editors are getting too much money to ignore them or what?

Because that's exactly something someone doing censorship for the CCCP would just make up. Like I just got here, and Wikipedia is not vague: " An appropriate secondary source is one that is published by a reputable publisher, is written by one or more experts in the field, and is peer reviewed."

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)

Where on that page is your reasoning coming from?

All of those papers I linked have been peer reviewed. They are all published in respected science journals. Do you want to debate whether or not the authors are qualified? Okay, then what are your qualifications Mr. Anonymous Editor?

Right now Wikipedia is very obviously actively censoring the peer reviewed literature. Also the opinion of the Washington Post's Editorial Board? You guys have better judgement than them?

So what exactly are the credentials of the editors who are censoring all of these papers about gain of function research from Wikipedia?

Tedros has said everything is on the table: https://www.euronews.com/2021/02/12/all-hypotheses-still-on-the-table-over-covid-19-s-origins-who-chief-says . So again, what is the criteria the editors are using to exclude all of this peer reviewed research, if it is not their own personal bias and corruption? Driftwood1300 ( talk) 18:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) — Driftwood1300 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

The problems with the sources you list were already explained to you in another discussion. I would advise taking the feedback you have already received to heart, rather than retreading old ground. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

This article is about the conclusions of the WHO investigation: https://apnews.com/article/who-coronavirus-experts-learned-in-wuhan-86549d1189f3d174273a26e39d177d05 . Also, I have pointed at an obvious example of misrepresentation on this page before and have recently deleted from the draft some parts only supported by unreliable sources (in case the recent history can also serve as example). — Paleo Neonate – 01:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep

Our technology has gotten to the point where we can '3D print' any virus we want by the bucket load. Here is a link to a Galveston Labs paper documenting how they literally fabricated an infectious virus from nothing more than an email. It's easy to do and common these days.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32289263/

I've personally worked with millions of synthetic viruses. They are cheap enough that I don't even ask how much they cost to synthesize. Every single one of them was created synthetically.

Many labs have printed live viruses using a wide variety of techniques. Here is another paper documenting how a Swiss lab did it:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2294-9

Synthetic viruses are easy to make.

More than 2 million people have died and Wikipedia won't give the large group of famous scientists below a voice? Whether or not this virus is lab made, the world needs to understand the debate to prevent future pandemics. This pandemic has already killed more people than nuclear weapons and more people are capable of making pandemic level viruses than nuclear weapons. This deserves a thorough discussion.

The journal of medical virology is ran by a very famous virologist. How many countries and world famous scientists are on the author list? Will Wikipedia suppress them? Adam Brufsky M.D. Ph.D., the author of one of the papers below, has an h-index of 75. You can't get much better than that!

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmv.26478

Then there is Sirotkin, the creator of dbSNP. Anyone that works with genetics knows what dbSNP is. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000091 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202100017

Wikipedia previously said peer review is the barrier to entry. Well you have not only peer review, but peer review articles written by famous authors from around the world. If that isn't good enough for acceptance, what unbiased metric is? If you reject their work, you might as well change your name to "Wiki-torial". It is no longer an encyclopedia, but an opinion piece. You are not only rejecting peer review journals, but you are rejecting titans in the field. These are household names.

NW Science ( talk) 20:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC) — NW Science ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Keep

It is abnormal that very important and reliable information regarding the origin of the SARS-COV-2 has been redirected to "misinformation"; classifying this as misinformation is incorrect; it is not misinformation but reliable information, reviewed by serious people and peer reviewed journals, about a possible lab leak. the world has to know the type of biological experiments that are done nowadays, and in particular that were done in Wuhan with viruses, and the risks they imply. the severity of theses risks is very important, (as the consequences of the pandemic shows), and as such, these risks need to be investigated and treated. Please reput the information, and don't class it as misinformation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertsia ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) — Ertsia ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Delete - The above WP:SPAs can serve as an example of coordinated efforts to push WP:FALSEBALANCE narratives and speculation on Wikipedia, rather than official statements and the scientific consensus ( WP:NOT). This article was among various WP:POVFORKs of COVID-19 misinformation. — Paleo Neonate – 21:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Suspected WP:SPA have been identified through appropriate process and templates. Your characterization here is both inappropriate and redundant. Please refrain from personal attacks on editors that disagree with your POV. You have already made an unsourced complaint about an editor whose ban was reversed due to the assumption that your complaint had merit. Maybe it is time you constrain your edits to areas you have less emotional involvement. Dinglelingy ( talk) 15:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply

"Unsourced complaint?" Ha. My point of view? Wikipedia is about representing consensus not personal opinions, why editors must rely on the best sources and properly summarize them. But yes, I did file a complaint earlier, related to disruption on this page. — Paleo Neonate – 01:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Context: Disruption is in the page history of this discussion, complaint, admin comment after their erroneous action (due to an assumption a COVID-19 GS/Alert had been posted before or that a previous topic ban existed, something I didn't suggest in my complaint but I mentioned a previous block) and the requested warning about edit warring. — Paleo Neonate – 05:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete this UNDUE POVFORK. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: As a WP:FRINGE WP:POVFORK. Sources deliberately misused. The use of News Limited sources in an article about China is always questionable, but the The Daily Telegraph story does not support what the article claims. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  This reminded me of this that was still unfixed since my obervation a week prior. "Some scientists, have said that the possibility of a lab leak is unlikely." vs "The current consensus is that while investigations should be pursued, the possibility of a lab leak remains unlikely, although it has mainly been promoted by conspiracy theorists." (source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/scientists-examine-possibility-covid-leaked-lab-part-investigation/). — Paleo Neonate – 04:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. POV fork that has enjoyed extensive disruption encouraged by several of the BioEssays authors on Twitter. A few of those Twitter threads even suggest harassment of specific editors... JoelleJay ( talk) 04:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep The draft is well sourced and almost nothing indicates a non NPOV. It's actually a pretty good example of a productive fork in line with Wikipedia policy and labeling this a 'POV fork' is a clear misunderstanding of the well established principles of WP:SPINOUT.

The draft content would be inappropriate for COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story (as proposed by multiple commenter PaleoNeoNatal) as consensus has clearly moved this out of the realm of 'fringe' according to RS in both the political and scientific community.

Merging into Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 could possibly be appropriate but that would require serial natural origin POV pushers here or legitimate editors to source actual MEDRS in sufficient quantity. Even then, this draft content would probably dwarf available natural origin RS and MEDRS so that would give undue weight to the lab leak hypothesis which I don't think is appropriate. This is best resolved with the fork under debate until the scientific community proves otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinglelingy ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Dinglelingy ( talk) 14:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC) — Dinglelingy ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

And have you considered the fact that this is already merged at the appropriate target, and that the sources in the draft (as already evidenced above) might be misrepresented, as well as being actually not-reliable? And, no, consensus has definitively not "moved this out of the realm of 'fringe'"... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Huh? I realize this is your own deletion proposal but best practices dictate you make your case and then let the community decide. Regardless, what the hell are you talking about?

"already merged at the appropriate target"

"sources in the draft (as already evidenced above) might be misrepresented"

"as well as being actually not-reliable?"

I don't see anything in your proposal that substantiates this claim. Sorry.

With respect to your 'fringe' claim, I don't know your expertise and I don't really care. According to WHO Director General Tedros, "“Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded. Having spoken with some members of the team, I wish to confirm that all hypotheses remain open and require further analysis and studies,”

Take it up with the WHO if you have a problem, leave your conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories out of Wikipedia.

Dinglelingy ( talk) 15:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply

How many times do people have to tell you that MEDRS all but requires secondary biomedical sources aka EXPERT REVIEWS, which the BioEssays papers are not? JoelleJay ( talk) 00:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

How many times? Based on your comment history you seem to have an obsession for BioEssays [4]. If your opinion is valid you should pursue options under WP:RS, your attorney, or maybe the Human Resources Dept. In the mean time I suggest you avoid complaints directed at peer reviewed scientific journals and focus on princes and princesses. Thanks. Dinglelingy ( talk) 05:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

So does your non-response to my question indicate you now understand why those papers do not belong on Wikipedia? JoelleJay ( talk) 20:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

No, what I was clearly suggesting is that repeated personal attacks on the credibility of paper authors while denigrating the peer review process, the peer reviewers, and the integrity of a reputable MEDRS journal suggests an axe to grind and is innapproriate for this discussion. You need to take that axe somewhere else and I have suggested possible alternative avenues. I'll add another one, write your own response paper and submit it for peer reviewed publication. You also seem to have a flawed understanding of MEDRS. The papers are very clearly secondary sources and not primary sources. Your edit history suggests an insistence that the papers are not secondary sources because in your anonymous internet opinion the authors are not experts in the subject. I'm sorry but that evaluation is the responsibility of the journal publishing the papers and their peer review process. As far as wikipedia MEDRS is concerned BioEssays is a reputable journal. Subjective opinions of expertise under MEDRS applies only to authors of professional books not reputable journals. This is clearly spelled out and not debatable, no matter 'how many times' you have had this discussion with other editors. Thanks.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000240

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000091 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinglelingy ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep The draft contains useful material and is WIP. That it includes deprecated sources is no reason to delete the whole article. And it is not fringe. Arcturus ( talk) 16:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Nominator comment: Per this; I have added two more substantially similar (if not exact copies) pages which are of a very similar construction and purpose. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete All These are all duplicates of a previous version of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. The page is now a redirect, and the topic is covered sufficiently at the target. – dlthewave ☎ 05:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to provide a hosting service for conspiracy theories. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a site to spread conspiracy theories. — pythoncoder ( talk |  contribs) 22:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Isn't it literally the purpose of the project to provide reliably sourced information about notable, encyclopedic topics? I do not understand how this is possible without "spreading" or "hosting" it. jp× g 07:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Absolutely, there are two other articles about it already, — Paleo Neonate – 07:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note to closer some keep editors beyond this point may have been WP:STEALTH canvassed by a topic banned editor. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Off_Wiki_Recruitment. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 20:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The editor in question has been blocked for 2 months for yet another topic ban violation, which, this time, attempted to circumvent the ban by email. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Subject is sufficiently notable and has many top RS to source it. There have been content issues but they can easily be discussed at the relevant talk page, and even if they escalate it is preferable to resort to methods of dispute resolution such as RFCs, first. I have myself conducted a RFC that stopped POV pushes from one of the top 3 covid articles, and it worked like a charm. Finally, the WHO team leader, Peter Ben Embarek just did an interview with Sciencemag denying that the lab leak theory is ruled out, and explaining why the press conference had the wording "extremely unlikely" by mistake, so please refrain from using that statemente from the WHO press conference in your argumentation. Forich ( talk) 23:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  I don't think anyone who voted delete claim that it's completely ruled out, — Paleo Neonate – 00:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  [5] Great article Forich. Thanks for mentioning. I do not agree that it contradicts the wording "extremely unlikely" though. Sounds to me like he is saying that phrase was meticulously chosen, and he stands behind it. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Even though there is a lot of crazy that feeds into the the umbrella of "Covid-19 lab leak", the idea is not unscientific.
  • There are many scientists who have described the conjectured event of a leak as improbable, but not so many who say it is impossible.
  • The question of the furin cleavage site is one factor that is described as having arisen in coronaviruses many times. This removes any necessity for it to have been inserted by genetic engineering as claimed by some. However we know that the virus existed in a post-bat reservoir (where the furin site would have been useful) before coming to attention in Wuhan. This reservoir may have been in a lab, or may have been in the wild, or in livestock.
  • Another argument given is that "no-one" was working on this type of project, in the Wuhan labs. It's by no means clear that we know what everyone in these labs was working on.
  • The RaTG-13 published datasets appear to be contaminated with both hoseshoe bat and Malayan pangolin DNA, implying that pangolins were involved in the science at some point, which has not been disclosed.
  • It should be noted that there are also ideas that the outbreak may have originated in Guandong or elsewhere, and only become widespread in Wuhan.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 02:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC). reply

The fact that the idea is not unscientific doesn't mean we should have a separate article on it (a sub-section seems valid enough); and these drafts in their current form would require WP:TNT in any case, as they are mostly attempts to justify such a theory by convoluted reasoning... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Repeating what I already said above: we already have COVID-19 misinformation, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, — Paleo Neonate – 02:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Rich, I'd have to point you to WP:FALSEBALANCE. Particularly: Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. This seems to fit squarely within. Even if one believes it isn't a conspiracy theory (which is well sourced), it is, at best, a plausible but currently unaccepted theor[y] No peer-reviewed article in a decent journal gives legitimacy to this conspiracy, but there are countless pieces on its natural origins, and multiple pieces on this being a unscientific. There is nothing neutral about this article. Not in the slightest. There's a reason why the writer is tbanned. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 04:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

ProcrastinatingReaderm

There are two papers I am familiar with, the first is somewhat weak in its argumentation. It establishes reasonably that the virus is substantially un-engineered. And it makes the claim I mentioned above that no-one was working on it, without adducing any evidence for this.

The second soundly refutes the claim in the draft article that furin cleavage sites do not occur in other coronaviruses, and should be included in the draft.

Neither of these are convincing evidence against a lab leak.

I would be very interested in any peer-reviewed article that can show that Covid-19 must have developed in a wild (or domestic) animal population, and could not have developed in a laboratory. It seems to me that there are techniques that could demonstrate, or at least indicate, the species of the intermediate host, but much more than this would be a stretch, unless the infected community was found, or unless statistical arguments could establish an evolutionary requirement for a population would be infeasible in a lab.

Even more interested in any papers that demonstrate that there were no samples taken from a wild or domesticated intermediate population and then leaked from a lab. The only way this could be proved, it seems to me, is by establishing a convincing case for the actual zoonotic jump. Let us hope this is established in due course.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC). reply

• Keep - it was/still is a world-wide topic, and is definitely notable. WP needs to publish a well-written article about this topic in order to properly inform our readers from a neutral, academic perspective. I don't see a valid reason to delete the draft. Atsme 💬 📧 04:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This has been discussed to death on multiple talk pages and noticeboards, so I will try to keep it short:

• First of all: "this is a conspiracy theory" does not seem like a good deletion argument; is this to be followed by AfDs for Moon landing conspiracy theories, Bigfoot and Sightings of Elvis Presley? The existence of an article about some hypothesis does not, to a reasonable person, constitute a claim that it is true. The fact that a bunch of reliable sources talked about this thing is reason enough to have an article about it.
• Second of all: WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not seem like a good deletion argument. Having an article about something does not mean endorsing specific views on it, so the argument is whether it should be mentioned at all, to which I think the answer is "yes". There are plenty of politicians I think are liars and cheats; I am not nominating their articles for deletion on this basis. Not only does it fly in the face of the basic principles of the project, even if I was trying to pwn them, it's not even clear how that this would accomplish that (if they're so rotten, wouldn't it be better for people to read a neutrally written description of the times they lied and cheated about stuff?)
• Third of all: "even if it only says true stuff, it could cause people to believe false stuff" does not seem like a good deletion argument. There are some people who believe Freemasons control the world's governments, yet we have an article on Freemasonry. Refusing to have one, on the basis that some guy I made up in my head might use it as a justification to be stupid, doesn't really make sense. The article on Freemasons shouldn't falsely imply that they control the world's governments; beyond that, it's never been our role as an encyclopedia to prevent people from accessing knowledge which we imagine could potentially cause some unspecified bad thing to happen, and I don't understand why we would start now.

I am probably not going to edit this article much, because I am not an expert on coronavirus proteomics, and I don't want to get into nonstop politics arguments, but I recommend that people who have issues with the article's neutrality edit it themselves. jp× g 06:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

You rightfully pointing out that the article may never reach a proper state seems like a WP:TNT argument. As for WP:IDONTLIKEIT Wikipedia cares about consensus views, reported by reputable bodies, not collections of baseless speculation ( WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE). That's policy, not user opinion. None of the delete arguments are about IDONTLIKEIT. WP:POVFORK applies and is also policy. — Paleo Neonate – 06:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I did not say anything resembling "the article may never reach a proper state". I said that if people think an article is biased unfairly, they should edit it to give due weight to the views they consider underrepresented. This is not the same thing as saying it cannot happen. We seem to be doing fine having pages about Israel and Palestine and abortion and fascism. There is absolutely no policy against "writing articles about contentious political stuff"; indeed, one month ago the Washington Post did a a huge story about how an admin and former arbitrator was writing an article about a riot in the United States Capitol while it was happening. Like I said: if you think it is WP:FRINGE, is there something preventing you from editing the article to say that it's fringe? Deletion is not cleanup. jp× g 07:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep for userspace, abstain for draftspace - Wiping people's userspace stuff is pretty serious overkill. I haven't been in this topic for a while (somebody emailed me about this due to my discussion contributions months and months ago), so I'd need current-state-of-evidence on a couple of points before I could vote on the draftspace one. Specifically Has there been evidence making the "natural virus that got into circulation via a lab studying it" hypothesis seem remote? That's the only hypothesis that the draft presents as plausible, and last I heard (which was a long time ago) it was. If this is ruled out, that hypothesis can be put into "misinformation". If it remains plausible, lumping it into "misinformation" is not accurate (things of unknown truth value definitionally cannot be misinformation) and it needs to go somewhere else (i.e. this draft could be useful). The hypothesis itself is notable and while there could be undue-weight issues, those are not a valid motive for deleting a draft (they're a motive for fixing it before it's put into mainspace). The draft specifically notes that "escaped bioweapon" is implausible, so while that one definitely is misinformation, it doesn't bear on the draft. Magic9mushroom ( talk) 07:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Magic9mushroom ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ( diff) reply

  Who emailed you, Magic9mushroom? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 07:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  It was ScrupulousScribe. I've had no prior contact with that user. SS also sent me a list of sources, which I haven't read. (I'd ordinarily be less free about handing out this sort of thing, but the circumstances here are not ordinary.) Magic9mushroom ( talk) 11:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  You may want to read WP:NOTWEBHOST that includes user pages, noone WP:OWNs Wikipedia pages, — Paleo Neonate – 07:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  On reading the evidence and thinking it over, I'm going to have to change my vote to delete for the draftspace and the Arcturus one (since Arcturus wants it gone, my earlier objection on the basis of userspace is not applicable) and keep for the IP userspace one (on the same basis). The lab leak hypothesis has been rendered unlikely enough that it's not worthy of a full page (and there appear to be places it can go that aren't "misinformation"). Magic9mushroom ( talk) 12:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Magic9mushroom: I don't see how deleting the draft while keeping the IP one makes any sense. The IP one is an acknowledged copy of some version of the draft article with zero substantial edits. The only way it can be kept is by either keeping the draft article or copying the contribution history some where or obtaining the agreement of all copyright holders to remove attribution requirement. (See WP:Copying within Wikipedia.) Otherwise we have a WP:Copyvio of our own contributors. The latter two seem a dumb waste of time since there's no reason to delete the draft article if we're going to keep a copy of it. If people feel the draft must be moved out of draft space, it would be better to delete the IP version since as I said it has no significant edits, then move the draft article to the IP's user space; or something similar. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note about rewrite Special:Permalink/1006458121 is the revision that this deletion discussion is about, Special:Permalink/1006871830 is an example of what the article could look like if reworked, — Paleo Neonate – 07:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep as the article seems to contain well-sourced scientific information, and removing userspaces or drafts seems like severe overkill. David A ( talk) 07:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The topic being a valid one does not make it so that we should have a whole article about it. Additionally, once all the inappropriate content is removed (per the edits above by User:PaleoNeonate, the draft would be down to about 4 kB), the article is well too short to merit a separate page, and should be merged into either misinformation or "investigations into the origin". If such a merge is not possible or already done, then the draft serves only one purpose, which is as a POV fork to promote a fringe viewpoint on the topic, based mostly on OR: in which case WP:TNT applies. All of that does not change the fact that the consensus of scientific sources seem to consider that the lab leak theory is very unlikely, despite the somewhat contradictory statements from the WHO (which, per a source above, is also subject to political scheming...). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep In addition to what the other “keep” voices have said, it seems perfectly in keeping with the evidence to have an article about the potential of an accidental release. This should be clearly delineated away from the fringe and conspiracy-oriented assertions or intentionally released bio weapons. In that way, Wikipedia will be providing a viewpoint diversity for plausible but not likely views (accidental lab leak) while banishing the truly fringe conspiracy theories (bio weapon) to the appropriate “misinformation” pages. Failure to keep in this case would result in the driving of heterodox voices underground, limiting viewpoint diversity in Wikipedia, and an increasingly rightful level of distrust for Wikipedia’s mission in the eyes of the public. The discourse around this issue is symptomatic of the greater issue of groupthink in the circles of intellectual elites. We still have high levels of public trust here at Wikipedia. Let’s not blow it by being overzealous gatekeepers. Azahariev ( talk) 15:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Azahariev ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Wikipedia's policy is not to elevate "heterodox voices" beyond what they have already achieved. If you want to be dramatic about it, you could say that being "overzealous gatekeepers" is our job. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep Unfortunately some editors here are completely ignoring Wikipedia's guidelines on the proportionate representation of significant views published by reliable scientific and journalistic sources.

With regard to the former, we have (for example) this recent (4.2.2021) statement from scientists at the CNRS (surely a reliable scientific source!): "...on the basis of currently available data it is not possible to determine whether the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a zoonosis from a wild viral strain or an accidental escape of experimental strains." https://doi.org/10.2217/fvl-2020-0390

With regard to the latter, we have (for example) this recent (5.2.2021) statement from the Washington Post editorial board (surely a reliable journalistic source!): "What is China trying to hide about the origins of the pandemic - and why? ...there is another pathway, also plausible, that must be investigated. That is the possibility of a laboratory accident or leak... the goal must be to open the closed doors at the institute (WIV)." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/05/coronavirus-origins-mystery-china/

Please stop conflating the laboratory escape hypothesis with a conspiracy theory. It is nothing of the sort!

Rosenkreutzer ( talk) 04:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Rosenkreutzer: Did somebody ask you to comment here? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ RandomCanadian: I made some minor edits on the page before it was taken offline; I asked where it had gone, and was directed to this page. So no, I was not canvassed. I should add that the section you refer to above as 'the proper article' (here) clearly conflates the laboratory escape hypothesis with a conspiracy theory, as other editors here have pointed out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosenkreutzer ( talk • contribs) 06:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - For some reason I'm not afraid of sourced information being presented on Wikipedia. I understand some think because people are idiots, facts must be corralled into majority opinions that just happen to agree with one side, that isn't always completely correct either. Tom Ruen ( talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - This is an easy one. Of course keep. There is an endless amount of reliable source material on this topic. Why wikipedia would want to hide this material is besides me. For an example of a reliable source discussing the opinion of some scientists in regards to this topic see this quote:

In a significant change from a year ago, a growing number of top experts – including (ordered alphabetically by last name) Drs Francois Balloux, Ralph S Baric, Trevor Bedford, Jesse Bloom, Bruno Canard, Etienne Decroly, Richard H. Ebright, Michael B. Eisen, Gareth Jones, Filippa Lentzos, Michael Z. Lin, Marc Lipsitch, Stuart A Newman, Rasmus Nielsen, Megan J. Palmer, Nikolai Petrovsky, Angela Rasmussen and David A. Relman – have stated publicly (several in early 2020) that a lab leak remains a plausible scientific hypothesis to be investigated, regardless of how likely or unlikely.

We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list. [6]

Also in regards to a recent science review article on this topic see:

To conclude, on the basis of currently available data it is not possible to determine whether the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a zoonosis from a wild viral strain or an accidental escape of experimental strains. Answering this question is of crucial importance to establish future policies of prevention and biosafety. Indeed, a recent zoonosis would justify enforcing the sampling in natural ecosystems and/or farms and breeding facilities in order to prevent new spillover. Conversely, the perspective of a laboratory escape would call for an in-depth revision of the risk/benefit balance of some laboratory practices, as well as an enforcement of biosafety regulations. As the international team of 10 experts mandated by the WHO enters in China to investigate on SARS-CoV-2 origins (Mallapaty 2020), all the rational hypotheses should be envisaged in an open minded way.

-- Sallard, E., Halloy, J., Casane, D. et al. Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review. Environ Chem Lett (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1

Also in regards to a recent biosafety review article

There are two major hypotheses to explain the origin of COVID-19. One is the "natural origin" hypothesis, the other is that it might have escaped from a laboratory, with its origin subsequently hidden. Although most scientists support the natural origin idea the other cannot yet be dismissed. Evidence for each hypothesis is presented. If the first theory is correct then it is a powerful warning, from nature, that our species is running a great risk. If the second theory is proven then it should be considered an equally powerful, indeed frightening, signal that we are in danger, from hubris as much as from ignorance.

-- Butler, Colin. "Plagues, Pandemics, Health Security, and the War on Nature." Journal of Human Security, 16.1 (2020): 53-57. https://doi.org/10.12924/johs2020.16010053

These are definitely enough sources for a keep in my opinion. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 12:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Neither source is WP:MEDRS. Specifically, and minimally, fails the "reputable medical journals" part. Seems to be a pattern with this conspiracy theory. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

ProcrastinatingReader, can you elaborate when you get a chance? #2 is a review article and is in PubMed. I think one could make an argument that it is MEDRS. [7] Except perhaps the fact that it's an "environmental chemistry" journal, which doesn't seem related to virology. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't think the Sallard et al article is a review, despite having ": a Review" tacked on to the title. It's a translation of PMID 32773024, here appearing in a non-MEDLINE-indexed journal in English. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't think Environmental Chemistry Letters is a medical journal (never mind a reputable one). Also not entirely convinced of the credentials of the authors at a skim - most do not seem to be virologists or in a closely related field. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ ProcrastinatingReader: Your comment is incorrect. The article is a translation from the French original in Médecine/Sciences Paris ( https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2020123), a reputable medical journal published by the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research. Contrary to the comment from Alexbrn above, it is clearly a review article, and that is why it is referred to as such in the title of the English translation. The lead author is a virologist from the École Normale Supérieure de Paris who is working specifically on gene therapy for COVID-19. The other authors are a professor of molecular evolution at the Université de Paris, a professor of biophysics at the Université de Paris, an expert on genome analysis and bioinformatics at the Institut Français de Bioinformatique, and a virologist at CNRS (French National Centre for Scientific Research). The latter author - Étienne Decroly - recently gave an excellent interview on this very subject to the CNRS news site ( https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/the-origin-of-sars-cov-2-is-being-seriously-questioned). Forgive me, but given the gravity of this subject it is absolutely vital that you get your facts straight rather than merely 'skimming' and reaching your conclusions on a whim. Rosenkreutzer ( talk) 04:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The original article is classified by the published/PUBMED/NLM as a "comparative study", not a review. The English version is in a non-MEDLINE indexed journal, and is not classified as a review either (despite the title). It's not a good WP:MEDRS, when in fact we have six or seven on-point quality sources. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

You do not think this is a medical journal. You're joking right? The origin of a virus is generally an evolutionary genetics issue. It is a high impact journal.

Impact Factor: 5.92

Journal: by Springer Nature

Authors: Erwan Sallard1 ,Jose halloy2 ,Didier Casane3 , 4 , Jacques van Helden 5 , 6 * , * and Étienne Decroly 7 *

1 École Normale Supérieure de Paris, 45 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France

2 University of Paris, CNRS, LIED UMR 8236, 85 bd Saint-Germain, 75006 Paris, France

3 Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, IRD, UMR Evolution , Génomes, Behavior and Ecology, 91198, Gif-sur-Yvette, France

4 University of Paris, UFR Sciences du Vivant, F-75013 Paris, France

5 CNRS, French Institute of Bioinformatics, IFB-core, UMS 3601, Évry, France

6 Aix-Marseille Univ, Inserm, Theory and approaches of genome complexity (TAGC) laboratory, Marseille, France

7 AFMB, CNRS, Aix-Marseille Univ, UMR 7257, Case 925, 163 avenue de Luminy, 13288 Marseille Cedex 09, France

They are qualified. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 14:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Here is another science review on the topic:

"to fully understand the origins of SARS-CoV-2 we must adjust our operating assumptions. First and foremost, the scope of hosts must include those where serial passage has taken place or is likely to occur, even if they are not naturally occurring as is the case of knockout mice with human ACE2 receptors."

--Thomas Friend & Justin Stebbing,1 "What is the intermediate host species of SARS-CoV-2?", Future Virol. (2021).

"An editorial review of the proximal origins of SARS-CoV-2, what may have been missed and why it matters."

1 Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK

Clearly, the lab origin hypothesis is being reviewed and is on the table in science (Wikipedia really shouldn't bury its head in the sand and stay in its own universe). -- Guest2625 ( talk) 10:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

You have already been explained to on the relevant talk pages why these sources are not appropriate. The only one burying their head in the sand and asking we repeat to you the same explanations as before is you. Motivated reasoning does not override requirements of WP:MEDRS or WP:NPOV. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete all three. For the record I believe that the topic is actually notable and that a separate article, from a section in COVID-19 misinformation is justified. The topic may be mostly WP:FRINGE but it has received widespread and sustained WP:RS coverage that shows no sign of going away, especially after the WHO team visit and report. There is now significant coverage of the conspiracy theorists themselves promoting this stuff (e.g. here [8]) which should probably be included in some way. Simply having a section on the topic in another article is insufficient under the circumstances in the long term. However, the three pages nominated in this MfD are all unsalvageable POV-pushing pieces essentially promoting debunked FRINGE conspiracy theories. These pages are well beyong WP:TNT level; their existence, even in draft/user space is actively harmful. Nsk92 ( talk) 13:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete as it apears to be nothing more than a WP:POVFORK and WP:FRINGE. Chaosdruid ( talk) 00:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Guest2625 and Atsme. Lots of lots of coverage of this topic (e.g. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html and https://www.wired.com/story/if-covid-19-did-start-with-a-lab-leak-would-we-ever-know/). Conflation of a reasonable hypothesis about an accident with conspiracy theories does not deliver the neutral treatment that this subject, like any subject, requires here on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 ( talk) 01:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep, the fact that there have been papers published theorizing a lab leak and news reports about it prove that the topic is most definitely not WP:FRINGE. There's been a good deal of Wikipedians trying to paint this article as an inherently fringe opinion due to the fact that it's not the conventional narrative despite the fact that it's been written about in scientific journals. As for WP:POVFORK, (disregarding the fact that numerous pages exist in regards to COVID-19 but only this one is being strongly contested as WP:POVFORK) the article itself states "such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.", and given the almost 50-50 disagreement in regards to this page - it's far mor appropriate to have this page merged into the main COVID-19 pandemic article (which is also not an invitation to rewrite the page in its entirety as part of a merge, only trim as necessary to fit). -- Porcelain katana ( talk) 03:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Discussion

Comment. Pinging Rich, Atsme, JPxG, Magic9mushroom, Azahariev: In order to write an article on a minority scientific perspective, we need strong RS discussing it in the context of expert consensus--which we already have in the investigations article to the extent that it is DUE (although I agree it could maybe get some more expansion there). The additional material people want to include in a separate article is a) the non-trivial lay media coverage and b) details supporting its scientific plausibility. An article with just the former would be incomplete and would be difficult to balance appropriately because there are so many lay and MEDPOP RS promoting it and not many dismissing it; this is inappropriate because it would not depict how the topic is treated as a scientific hypothesis by the majority of experts. So to include the former would necessitate the latter (to couch it in the appropriate context), and in order to describe the actual hypothesis in any scientific detail we would need multiple outstanding-quality MEDRS covering it. And so far, these sources do not exist because the idea does not receive anything more than non-committal remarks that it's "not scientifically impossible". A few dozen scientists whose backgrounds and credentials may or may not be relevant voicing their opinions to lay media outlets does not outweigh the overwhelming absence of support or even acknowledgement of the hypothesis in MEDRS-compliant scientific publications by the thousands of actual experts. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The science relative to the actual biological transmission would fall under WP:MEDRS - what this draft deals with is political. See The Independent which states: The World Health Organisation-led investigation into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic must look beyond China, a UK scientist on the team that visited Wuhan has said, as he refused to rule out a lab leak as the possible source of the outbreak. The Sydney Morning Herald states: "The early conclusion is this: the virus is likely to have been transmitted via an intermediate animal more closely related to humans than bats, but the original source or location of the disease remains unknown." The next paragraph reads: "The difficulty for the WHO and the dozen highly regarded scientists, virologists and epidemiologists on its investigating team is managing expectations of a result, while undertaking the most politically charged scientific investigation in history." Atsme 💬 📧 20:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree it's politicised, which is the entire reason the conspiracy theory exists and why people like Trump and Pompeo relentlessly pursued it. That doesn't make its nature political. The origins of the virus is entirely a scientific matter. If it has natural origins, it obviously didn't escape from a lab, and Wikipedia needn't serve as a microphone for conspiracy theorists & present this fringe theory in an UNDUE way to present it as more legitimate than it is in the scientific community. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes. If it's political in nature, then why is the opinion of a scientist being regarded as important? One can't have cake and eat it too. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

ProcrastinatingReader The virus having natural origins and escaping from a lab aren’t mutually exclusive. The most plausible scenario that I have seen on the lab leak hypothesis side is that the lab was studying a naturally occurring virus that it acquired from wild bats and accidentally released it when a researcher was exposed (I am paraphrasing from memory but this is the crux of it). This is why wp:MEDRS -appropriate experts alone cannot be used to judge the veracity of this hypothesis. Investigators of all stripes, including journalists and criminal/intelligence investigators will have to be involved in the end (if the origin is even knowable). Virologists, biologists, etc. are a necessary but not sufficient set of experts for the issue at hand. Azahariev ( talk) 02:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

ProcrastinatingReader, the topic under discussion is the hypothesis of natural bat coronavirus -> WIV studies it because bat coronaviruses are potentially dangerous (SARS had already occurred) -> accident -> pandemic. While obviously unparsimonious, this scenario is really hard to rule out because even if true, it predicts that SARS-CoV-2 should be indistinguishable from a natural virus (which it is; this is why the "bioweapon" claim is obviously untrue and correctly filed under "misinformation"). The only way to rule out this possibility would be to trace how the virus got into Wuhan - they've done work on this, but not nailed anything in the recent report. It's one of those buggers of things that's unlikely (now very unlikely) but AFAIK consistent with available evidence (and doesn't even require any actual malice from anyone) - this is why all the RS downplay it but are super-cagey about outright saying it's false. Magic9mushroom ( talk) 11:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

"It's one of those buggers of things that's unlikely (now very unlikely) but AFAIK consistent with available evidence [...]"

What? There is NO evidence of it, hence why it is being treated as "very unlikely". A lack of evidence for an accidental release is deffo not proof of an accidental release.

Similarly, having already stated "SARS-CoV-2 should be indistinguishable from a natural virus (which it is [...]", why would your next sentence appear to state the opposite? Chaosdruid ( talk) 00:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Simply because a medical topic has become matter of political controversy does not mean that we can suddenly reduce sourcing requirements. That does not, naturally, preclude mentioning the political aspect, where relevant, but in no case should we allow coverage of the political scene to override MEDRS: after all, in spite of the political ramifications, the origin of the virus is first and foremost a scientific question. This is mainly out of concern for WP:NPOV, as already explained. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note. This discussion is now actively being recruited for on twitter by "lab leak" believers. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Alexbrn: Any such evidence probably needs expedited shipping to ArbCom, naturally. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

No evidence directly linking it to any particular contributors. It's pushed by the authors of the BioEssays paper, as you'd expect. So nothing ArbCom can or will do. See this and other such tweets. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Since they seem to be reading this page so carefully, let's point them to WP:NOT... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Some people are just convinced that the purpose of Wikipedia is to promote them. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Which is of course also unacceptable per WP:COI, — Paleo Neonate – 01:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

This is uncharitable. If someone believes in a lab leak, they would expect it to be something Wikipedia would cover. Moreover they would have a moral duty to encourage Wikipedia to do so.

Pointing them to WP:NOT, WP:COI, WP:RS etc. is exactly correct.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC). reply

We need to stick to MEDRS where we are making claims in Wikipedia's voice. We do not need to do so when we are reporting the claims of others. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC). reply

• Comment it doesn't seem there's any real risk of this but note to closing admins you need to take great care if the outcome is only delete one or two. From what I've seen, I think there is good chance that info has been copied back and forth between these drafts sometimes without proper attribution. Therefore only deleting 1 or 2 runs the risk of creating or worsening a copyvio situation. Obviously admins should use common sense in deciding if there's a problem. E.g. if one of the drafts has only been meaningfully edited by one editor and they have requested deletion or otherwise have indicated they don't have a problem with their contribution history being lost then there's no problem for that draft. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Point of Order

RandomCanadian you created this deletion proposal and now today you have created RFC proposal arguing the lab leak hypothesis should be considered a political conspiracy theory while your first proposal is still open here. I won't link to it so I don't get 'accused' of canvassing but what's the logic after all the discussion here? It sure stinks like WP:ForumShop based on your comments in the Fringe Notice Board. In fact, everyone who has complained about canvassing here is at the same time coordinating their responses in the fringe board, in edit history comments, and/or in their individual talk pages. Just a sample [9], [10], [11], [12]

Based on commenting at the Fringe Board that includes RandomCanadian, PaleoNeoNate, ProcrastinatingReader, XOR'easter, AlexBrn, and Hemiauchenia. Between the six of you there are close to 50 comments here, bludgeoning responses from any other editors. It smells a lot like WP:STONEWALLING and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.

I personally have been threatened not to contribute here anymore. [13]

And most concerning, the six of you seem to be onboard with the tactics suggested by Hemiauchenia in the Fringe Notice Board.

"The best tactic, as is usual on Wikipedia, is to stonewall them until they get frustrated and either stop editing or engage in personal attacks which get them topic banned." Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)" [14]

AlexBrn specifically endorsed it, while the rest of you appear to be engaging in it with all the topic ban threats and campaigning I see. It looks to me like the whole purpose of the Fringe Notice board WP:FTN is being radically abused by a small group of editors who appear to think they own this topic. Do any of you want to distance yourselves from these tactics?

This really is disturbing coordinated behavior and a real embarrassment for Wikipedia. What a total waste of everyone's time who has put the effort in to contribute here. Quite the WP:CircleJerk. Dinglelingy ( talk) 13:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Point of order: such ramblings are out-of-order here. If you want to discuss behaviour, take it to WP:AIN. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

No, looking to get consensus on the subject and this continuous BS is getting annoying to most editors and giving Wikipedia a bad name. Dinglelingy ( talk) 16:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The page is to discuss whether to delete something. If you want to discuss editor conduct take it to AIN - just raising it here is disruptive. You have been warned. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree. You have made some great points. It does appear as if a small group of editors is colluding at Wikipedia:Gaming the system. I am not an administrator with the expertise to sift through all the behavioral evidence, but there does appear to be smoke. I was especially concerned about what I saw on the Wuhan Institute of Virology talk page. There do appear to be conduct issues. The best thing we can all do is just move forward and get back to editing in a productive and collaborative fashion. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 03:24, 19 February 2021 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.