Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 measles outbreak in California


 * 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. Consensus is that this falls under WP:NOTNEWS. May be restored for selective merging.  Sandstein  18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

2008 measles outbreak in California

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A dozen cases over two months and no deaths. Made the local news, and attracted the CDC's attention (it is their job to look after such things), but not really notable in a lasting way. Biruitorul Talk 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dloh cierekim  15:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 
 * Keep. Per WP:N, notability does not expire or go away after a certain amount of time. Happyme22 (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability doesn't expire, but sensationalism does. This event was sensational, but never notable. Pburka (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, press coverage indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge to MMR_vaccine_controversy. This outbreak is just part of a pattern of undervaccination incidents. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Make that simply delete. At the risk of sounding slightly macabre, wait until we have an actual epidemic or some broader impact than just a flash in the pan. One article for 2008 all of the outbreaks might be interesting, but better would be a subarticle on frequency and distribution of outbreaks vs. vaccination and other public health initiatives. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly of note historically, agree with everyking and happyme22Myheartinchile (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless we're also going to include the 2008 measles outbreak in Illinois, the 2008 measles outbreak in Arizona and the 2008 measles outbreak in Toronto. It appears that measles outbreaks are fairly common. Pburka (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do they have significant press coverage like this one does? If so, you won't hear any objection from me. Everyking (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They have as much or more press coverage than the California outbreak. That is to say, local news sources covered them for a few weeks and a couple of national sources pick it up. According to this there have been a dozen outbreaks in the US so far in 2008. It doesn't make sense to have an article about each one. It might make sense to have a single 2008 measles outbreaks in North America article as the number of outbreaks this year does seem to be unusual. Pburka (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They could be written about as one article. If we want to do that, the proper outcome is to keep this article and then move or redirect it into a new article with a broader scope. Everyking (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Last I heard, we can't delete and merge. It destroys the page histories. Singly, the measles epidemics <> are not sufficiently notable and would be better redirected and merged into a single article, like Measles Outbreaks of 2008. Collectively and historically, measles outbreaks are significant and notable. We are fortunate in the lack of fatalities-- that will change. Cheers, and happy editing.
 * Delete --24 cases is not even close to an epidemic. This no doubt also applies to other measles outbreak articles.  49 years ago when I had it, measles was a common childhood disease.  Since vaccination it has become rare.  It needs something much larger scale to warrnat an article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Interesting point, Peter. Technically, it is an epidemic> outbreak, though. Perhaps there is a greater notability involved here. Perhaps it's notable that these things happen at a time when the disease could possibly be eradicated with more thorough vaccicnation. (Don't want to open that can of worms, though.) I'm not the one with the skills to argue in favor of it if it does exist. As a side note, I alomost died of measles, so I greeted the development of the vaccine with exclamations of joy. But that's neither here nor there in the great scheme of things. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Peterkingiron and Pburka. Such outbreaks happen all the time. There is not sufficient evidence of this one being actually notable even if it was (sensationally) reported in the news. --Eleassar my talk 15:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is articles like this one that make me wish our notability guidelines were revamped. The notion that something popping up once or twice in the news means we should have an article on it is absurd.  There are many events that occur routinely and are not of any particular note, but local news outlets are bound to have a blurb on them all the same.  Arkyan 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find a single blurb in any local news outlet about the 1347 bubonic outbreak in Genua in Google News Archives: . Thus, non-notable. ¨23:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Smerge into MMR vaccine controversy.  Corvus cornix  talk  23:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete a textbook example of the application of WP:NOTNEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I think Phil, above, hit it on the nose. This is really a local news item. Such items can be notable, but I don't see a lot of evidence that this one is. Tim Ross   (talk)  19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete to my mind not notable and not encyclopedic. A short burst of media interest in an otherwise unimportant event that isn't really important or remotely unusual. RMHED (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2008 (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.