Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1970 ascariasis poisoning incident


 * 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   keep. If necessary, merging may be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

1970 ascariasis poisoning incident

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

As original article author I concede another editor has a good point that the subject may not actually be noteworthy or encyclopedic, and there was little else I could find on it, so I will AFD it unless community feels otherwise. I suggest that perhaps some of the info can just be placed in the ascariasis article. Rolypolyman (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep seems noteworthy enough, as it helped create a medical standard. fascinating, of course, and rather unique.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ascariasis. This incident occurred in Quebec yet the reference is from a Baltimore-based newspaper. Definitely worthy of encyclopedic mention, perhaps even in Britannica, but I don't think it is important enough for a separate article. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 13:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep My feeling is that this would not last long as a section in the article ascariasis. What I see is that it did set a medical standard, and it was an unusual incident of bioterrorism in 1970, at a time when domestic terrorism in North America was a fairly regular occurence.  Going strictly by news stories of the day  it might not have met the test if there had been a Wikipedia in 1970, but it has a measure of historical notability in medical journals (the cited NEJM article) and some from this list, and in books .  I think that the communication to the author by the other editor was more along the line of saying that there should be more sources to demonstrate notability, rather than a statement that no article should have been written. Mandsford (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Topic has third-party notability. Also, I cleaned up some messy sentences, especially in the lead sentence. Angryapathy (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral: There are references for this, but the first reference on the page to The Bulletin actually links to a Pittsburgh paper, and the third reference is inaccessible. Personally, I think mentioning this on the Ascaris suum is enough. It is notable enough in the context of establishing a "baseline" for human infection by this worm, but not notable enough for its own article. Grey Wyvern ⚒  18:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, my error on the Bulletin reference, I didn't replace the URL with the right one when putting it into citation format. Its fixed now.--Milowent (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa Keep - I was the editor who tagged it as possibly non-notable, but now I would keep it per WP:HEY. Good rescue! Bearian (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Research turns up a fair bit about this incident as well as the nature of Kranz who infected his room mates. Looking on Websites that feature bio-terrorism this incident has been noted to various degrees. That in itself should give an indication  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Real Natural (talk • contribs) 05:05, 13 November 2009 (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.