Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 vaccine side effects


 * 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 redirect to COVID-19 vaccine. There is consensus to not keep this content and this article. There is no consensus about whether to delete or redirect (and where to) the page. I'm implementing a redirection to the main article as the least restrictive and probably most consensual outcome. People can continue to discuss about whether to delete or retarget the redirect.  Sandstein  08:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccine side effects

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Nominating this for deletion based on WP:NPOVFACT and WP:NOPAGE. Let me state at the top that the question is not whether Wikipedia should provide information about adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. Obviously, we should! The question is also not whether there exist sufficient sources to make a case for notability. There is a ton of coverage of nearly every aspect of the vaccine such that we could spin out a dozen more subtopics into their own article. This deletion discussion is about WP:NOPAGE and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:NPOVFACT). It's about whether this subject should be spun out from the main article. With all of the COVID-19 mis/disinformation going around regarding supposed side effects, it does not seem in the spirit of our policies and best practices to pull side effects out for special coverage.

redirected it yesterday, but the creator restored it. The creator seems to have some problems with WP:MEDRS which aren't worth getting into here except insofar as e.g. this article has a whole section on Tinnitus where the only MEDRS-compliant source has nothing to do with vaccines. I mention this not because deletion hinges on the current state of the article, but as a secondary point illustrating an aspect of the NPOV issue. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: COVID-19 and Medicine. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete this isn't encyclopedic as it's currently written and is completely WP:OR and WP:FRINGE nonsense. PRAXIDICAE💕  15:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do wonder if the nominator read the Tinnitus section and the cited sources properly. The reason the MEDRS in that section doesn't mention vaccines is because sources are unsure whether the condition is caused by the vaccine or the COVID-19 disease itself. I myself have had tinnitus since my second vaccination, yet the sources linking it to vaccines do so only with Pfizer and Moderna, and I received AstraZeneca. Until we have scientific studies linking tinnitus to one or more vaccines, the MEDRS linking it to the disease seemed like a WP:BALANCE requirement to me, and that's why I added it. CutePeach (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear about your tinnitus. I know several people affected by it (unrelated to vaccines/covid), and know it can be really miserable sometimes. The thing is, until we have scientific studies linking tinnitus to one or more vaccines (or, preferably, reviews of said studies), we just shouldn't be including it. We're not trying to be an exhaustive resource of all possible medical information about covid -- we're trying to summarize the best, most reliable parts of the literature. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for your sympathy, but I would much prefer an apology and your participation in the VPP thread about MEDRS over-reach. First you accused me there of writing this article with a POV, then you presented here that the MEDRS I cited in the Tinnitus section was WP:SYNTH, and now you're telling me that we shouldn't include it without a review article without even checking if one exists (what's this?). This discussion only demonstrates the need to rein in MEDRS and sanction those who willingly misapply it. CutePeach (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It did look like some POV editing, yes. Maybe I'm wrong, but even below, after so many people have explained that biomedical claims (like vaccine side effects) should be supported by MEDRS, you're still saying I will try adding [side effects] to the vaccine page citing the NEWSORG and see if anyone tries claiming there are any MEDRS violations there. Maybe it's a learning curve and I/we should have more patience -- that would probably be fair. I certainly don't mean to be insulting, but if you detect that some editors get a little short about this stuff and don't provide a lot of room to make mistakes and learn the ins-and-outs of what's expected regarding biomedical content, you'd be right. People have been trying to twist (or ignore) MEDRS to push fringe (or just as-yet insufficiently studied!) vaccine [dis/mis/proto?-information] for years now. Maybe that's not what you were trying to do. With most of Wikipedia, there's no rush; with this stuff, people actually make medical decisions based on what our articles say.
 * I didn't claim the tinnitus section was WP:SYNTH, though, and didn't mention it on the other page. The only thing I've said about it is this article has a whole section on Tinnitus where the only MEDRS-compliant source has nothing to do with vaccines. I mentioned the one source that does meet MEDRS not because no others exist or because I think you were synthesizing, but to advise others who may look at the section and think it's a mix of good/bad sources about tinnitus as a side effect of COVID-19 vaccines, when it is not (or was not at the time). Whether or not a review exists doesn't change that we shouldn't include it without a review article. I disagree with the conclusion that This discussion only demonstrates the need to rein in MEDRS, but that's not to say some people apply it too broadly. Applying it to vaccine side effects is one specific application of MEDRS where you're not going to find a wide array of perspectives, though. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have shown you that there is MEDRS backing up what the non-MEDRS reported, so it shouldn't look POV editing to you anymore, and I ask that you to strike your comments above and in the VPP. The quote you highlighted shows you making a WP:SYNTH argument about the tinnitus claim, but as I've explained, there are RS reporting it as a vaccine side effect - which I contextualized with that MEDRS saying it might be a long lasting effect of the disease itself. If people are actually making medical decisions based on what our articles say, then we should be able to mention claims made in non-MEDRS, and contextualize them properly with MEDRS, and doing so does not violate MEDRS. If the claims are written in a contentious way, then it may be argued that they, too, should be sourced to MEDRS. These claims, however, are not so contentious, as the RS quoted Gregory Poland, a vaccinologist, who simply called for more research into it, and there is a new review article covering causal links. I have added it to the vaccine article, and if there are any issues with the way it is written, then hopefully we can resolve it in the TP there. CutePeach (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete in current form - I think it is certainly possible for WP to have such an article that rigorously uses WP:MEDRS suitable sources and does not engage in the sort of regurgitating speculation it currently does, which I agree infringes on WP:FRINGE and possibly WP:OR. If done carefully, I don't see that it is more of a POV fork than COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy could be, if not carefully written, as an example. At present, the only section that seems suitably referenced is on Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination, which has it's own article (the lead of which has been copied into the article in question apparently without attribution). |→ Spaully ~talk~ 15:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Blank and redirect Delete  Massive WP:MEDRS errors. No reason to stand as a separate article from the vaccine articles. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

*Keep We have an article on Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination, which is just one of several reported COVID-19 vaccine side effects. The subject is clearly WP:NOTABLE by the sheer number of RS covering it significantly, including the WHO joint statement the WHO and ICMRA put out just yesterday. As the statement says, the ​​global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented level of public interest in vaccines focusing on the ​​the development of vaccines and their regulatory review and safety monitoring, that have led to some people to express concerns about getting vaccinated, delay getting vaccinated or even be strongly opposed to vaccination. It is only prudent to cover these concerns, and perhaps rename the article to COVID-19 vaccine safety, but deleting it would be a classic case of WP:POVDELETION. Since AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, Praxidicae and Spaully's WP:OR or WP:FRINGE concerns can be addressed and resolved in the article TP. CutePeach (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it's "clearly WP:NOTABLE", because WP:NOTABLE says that "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." It is not enough to have "the sheer number of RS covering it significantly"; one must additionally have agreement from editors that it's best to handle this on a separate, stand-alone page.
 * Why do you believe that this information needs to be on a separate, stand-alone page instead of being at COVID-19 vaccine? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , I created this article to go into detail that might be WP:UNDUE in the vaccine article, but I am changing my !vote here and will work on the vaccine page. The prelude to this AfD was a VPP discussion about MEDRS, where I was accused of writing this article with a POV , claiming also that the tinnitus section is WP:SYNTH, when really a MEDRS was added to WP:BALANCE a NEWSORG report. I don't myself believe tinnitus is a side effect of COVID-19 as I received the AZ vaccine, though there are qualified experts who say it needs to be researched, and I don't see why that needs to be sourced to a MEDRS, or a review article in particular. I will try adding it to the vaccine page citing the NEWSORG and see if anyone tries claiming there are any MEDRS violations there. CutePeach (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the best approach.
 * The reason that we love a good review article is because it helps us figure out what's important enough to mention. A long list of "somebody claimed this, therefore we should investigate this" isn't the goal.
 * This is going to be long, but I can't think of a better way to explain it. Forget about vaccines for a moment.  Here is a partial list of what I've heard people claim were the causes of Breast cancer:
 * Having kids
 * Not having kids
 * Having too many kids
 * Using antiperspirant (I don't think she really believed this, but this story was making the rounds back then, and newly diagnosed people grasp at anything)
 * Wearing a bra
 * Not wearing a bra
 * Eating the wrong things (too much sugar/carbs, too much protein, not enough vegetable juice)
 * Losing too much blood in an accident
 * Weak immune system
 * Not being a kind enough person (this came from an extraordinarily kind woman)
 * Divine punishment (for getting divorced, if memory serves; she survived)
 * Divine blessing (for religious reasons, she preferred dying of cancer to either divorcing her husband or continuing to live with his abuse; she died)
 * Family history
 * Do you know what I haven't ever heard any woman claim about her breast cancer? Drinking alcohol (~15% of breast cancer cases), being overweight or obese (~10% of breast cancer cases), and being an older woman (biggest cause of all).
 * Almost all of these claims except the religious ones have been researched: there is an optimal (large) number of kids to prevent breast cancer; antiperspirant, bras, physical injuries, and attitude/personality are irrelevant; diet matters (but primarily in the "don't eat too much" sense and not nearly as much as not drinking alcohol); and a big family history is a very big deal, but no family history guarantees nothing.
 * IMO Wikipedia should not have an indiscriminate list of "someone claimed this once" content, or even a list of "all the things that someone once claimed and that somebody else mentioned in the news". IMO Wikipedia should instead have the broad outlines.   In the case of breast cancer, that means writing that there isn't much that an individual woman can realistically do to prevent breast cancer, beyond not drinking alcohol and trying to maintain a basic level of health/fitness.  This is the viewpoint that you will get if you look for a review article or a book.  It is not the view you will get if you try to chase down stories about individuals who might or might not have gotten The advantage of these bigger, better sources is that they can sum up all the little "stories" and then we can write an actual encyclopedia article that presents the big picture without a bunch of trivia.
 * Okay, back on track:
 * What Wikipedia needs for vaccines is what approximately it needs about the causes of breast cancer. It needs statements of larger, generally accepted effects, along with explanations that place that information in proper context (e.g., this is common but mild; this is rare but captured the public's imagination during the pandemic; this is typical of any vaccine, etc.), and not a list of things that somebody once claimed, things that somebody might want to research some day, or even a complete list of things that are both scientifically possible and mentioned more than once in the news.  What we really need is an encyclopedia article, not a laundry list of all verifiable allegations.  A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.  "Summary" means that you don't say as much as you could, and "accepted" means that you don't include speculative claims (like "someone claimed this and someone else said it should be research"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the advice. You are being much more courteous than who just disparaged my WP:MEDRSNOT essay to , as if the snowclose of this AFD somehow supports their position on MEDRS, and that I am making a WP:POINT. I agree with you that we shouldn't list side effects in an indiscriminate fashion, and that's why I didn't include the brewing controversy around the mRNA-LNP linked inflammation   , but the Tinnitus linked side effect is in fact covered by review articles  . As such, all side-effects listed in this article are covered by MEDRS, and I actually copied most of them from the vaccine article, so the WP:BLAR !votes here and are really not justified.
 * At the heart of the MEDRS/MEDRSNOT debate is WP:RECENTISM, and whether INCLUSIONIST editors like myself should be allowed to cite NEWSORG reports on BMI subjects with attribution, and BALANCE them appropriately while waiting on MEDRS for factual statements. The possible Tinnitis linked side effect citing NBC and MedPageToday quotes Mayo Clinic vaccinologist Gregory Poland who simply called for more research into it, yet I keep on hearing that MEDRS restricts us from including his view. Even without the review articles I showed you, do you really think that quoting this expert calling for research into this possible side effect is so bad, or a violation of MEDRS? And even if you deem it as UNDUE, do you see any justification for the nasty vitriol directed against me here and the bilious temperament on VPP?
 * Even, who previously reported me at WP:AE for citing an RS that in turn cites a preprint, purportedly in violation of WP:PREPRINT, but which resulted in a TBAN on COVID-19 origins for me anyway - is accusing me below of WP:GAMING for juxtaposing the NEWSORG piece with a MEDRS paper that I BALANCED it with. Common sense dictates that WP:PARITY applies to subjects high up on the WP:FRINGE spectrum, and not lower down on subjects where there is uncertainty, like Tinnitus as a COVID-19 vaccine side effect, and the topic I'm banned from editing and discussing. Only editors with a very strong POV, and the air of an WP:UNBLOCKABLE can get away with perverting WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS with impunity, and this has to stop. I am now going to file a WP:CR and post it on WP:AN to make sure that this AFD doesn't interfere further with the VPP discussion on the proper application of MEDRS. Please join us in the discussion there. CutePeach (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's not be super-specific (e.g., any exact edits that have already been made). The scenarios run like this:
 * This vaccine is safe and effective,[secondary sources] but someone said it might not be.[primary news source]
 * This vaccine is safe and effective,[secondary sources] but there is a side effect.[secondary sources]
 * In both cases, all of that is verifiable, but the first uses a primary source to debunk the secondary sources, which is not okay. That's not BALANCE; that's a GEVAL violation.  BALANCE says when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance.   A newspaper article is never "equal in prominence" to a peer-reviewed review article where biomedical information is concerned.  Using primary sources to debunk secondary sources is also a clear and direct violation of WP:MEDPRI.  Read the very first sentence in that section.
 * The second scenario is possible, but it depends on the specifics – the exact wording that you're putting into the article, and the exact claims that the source makes, whether the cited source represents the mainstream medical viewpoint, etc. There is a great deal of difference between a group of prominent researchers publishing a review article in a reputable journal that says "Based on excellent scientific data, we have conclusively determined there is a side effect" and a crackpot paying a predatory journal to say "Nobody I've contacted agrees with me, and the good journals are all part of the conspiracy to suppress this information, but I still feel in my gut that this side effect exists".  It is likely that the secondary sources you are looking at fall somewhere in between these two extremes, but if editors disagree with what you write, a sensible approach is to ask them whether they object to using the source at all (e.g., did you accidentally cite a predatory journal?  There are so many that it's hard to keep up with them all), or if they think it's possible to use it but wasn't presented fairly and accurately.  Sometimes, especially if people haven't yet run completely out of patience with you yet, they can be remarkably helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * please can we discuss the specifics of the alleged MEDRS violation in this AFD? Some people like and  are pointing to this AFD in VPP that I promote "conspiracy theories" as an "anti-MEDRS" editor, when we have WHO and review article sources on the tinnitus side effect. There is no question that the vaccine is safe, and that all side effects are extremely rare, and that is not in the scope of this discussion. What you asked me above is why I think the side effects needs a standalone article when they can be added to COVID-19 vaccine, and I answered that I will try adding information there , to which you replied that it must have a review article as a source , to which I replied saying we have that . I'm also not sure if you're saying my inclusion of Gregory Poland's viewpoint violates WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL, or how the secondary sources I added   violate WP:MEDPRI. The journal cited is Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , cited 95 times in Wikipedia, and the review article I mentioned above was published by ​​Annals of medicine and surgery, which is cited 21 times in Wikipedia, and neither of them are predatory . I agree that adding Poland's call for further research may be a ​​WP:PRIMARYNEWS concern if we are adding the tinnitus information to the vaccine article, if there is a consensus to only describe the tinnitus side-effect in a more summarized form. CutePeach (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of Further research is needed? The mere fact that someone calls for further research is unimportant.  Almost every researcher in the world is strongly in favor of more funding for their area of research.  Reporting that someone said FRIN at the end of a paper is like reporting that a charity asked for donations at the end of their press release.  Why should a Wikipedia article include that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, I am aware of FRIN and I understand your WP:UNDUE argument, but do you remember where I told you - directly above - that the purpose of this article was to go into more detail than the COVID-19 vaccine article? Any further discussion on this should go on the COVID-19 vaccine TP. CutePeach (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * FRIN isn't "further detail". It's "further vagueness". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , do you remember the part where I told you that this FRIN has been corroborated by MEDORG and MEDRS? I think we've come full circle now. CutePeach (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost all FRIN statements come from researchers and organizations that hope to benefit from that further funding. The fact that potential beneficiaries of further research funding are encouraging the US government (=one of the biggest funders of medical research in the world) to stump up more funding for their personal area of research is unimportant.  Mentioning this in any article is about as important as saying that most children would like more candy, or that most workers would like bigger paychecks.
 * If you are interested in the general subject, what's DUE is when someone says that further research is not needed, or that further research should prioritize X over Y. "Well, we don't know the answer to all of your questions yet, so I need to be paid to do some more research" is not important or relevant.  Look for statements like "We need less epidemiology research and more translational research" or "We aren't ready to do cure-oriented research, because we still don't know what the epidemiology looks like".  Ignore statements like "Further research is needed in my area". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed it's fluff and should not be written in Wikipedia article - as MOS:MED says. Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (Also, as a point of fact, side effects are not rare. Almost everyone getting a COVID vaccine will get side effects.  The common side effects are temporary and manageable at home:  soreness, elevated temperature, malaise, headache, etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thinking of it this way, the WP:DUE issues are pretty clear. The article spends (by my count) 4 sentences on the common mild side effects, and almost the entire remainder discusses the rare severe side effects. None of the mild side effects are noted in the By symptom section, where details of the side effects you listed (Is fever or headache more common? How do side-effects vary by dose/booster? Are mild side effects being cited as a cause of vaccine hesitancy?) might have changed my vote. At a minimum, the article is misnamed, as it only discusses Serious adverse events of COVID-19 vaccines in any detail. Which can be reasonably interpreted (as has been done by many here) as a POV-fork (the POV being 'COVID-19 vaccines have significant severe side effects', key word being significant). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * COVID-19 vaccines have significant severe side effects, key word being significant) No, I'm really not seeing that. The article emphasizes the rarity of severe side effects overall, and differentiates between common and severe side effects in the lead sentence, explaining that the mild ones usually subside within a week or two. There is obviously much more interest in possible severe side effects in RS and I added the "FRIN" about tinnitus before the latest review articles even came out, and they did not give more weight to the idea than the disease-associated hypothesis​​. Personally, I think tinnitus is more likely to be linked to the disease itself, but there could be some link with vaccines too, and even the WHO source mentions it, based on the EMA's PRAC assessment of JNJ vaccine trials. I think the hostility from you and here make for excellent diffs to present in an ARBCOM case requesting to rein in the persistent abuse of MEDRS and FRINGE guidelines. There were at least two editors in the FRINGE/N post about this AFD who said they don't see the POV in this supposed POVFORK , so I ask that you leave aside that rhetoric when we get around to expanding COVID-19 vaccine and creating COVID-19 vaccine safety. As for what Colin says directly below, I said nothing about bioweapons WRT COVID-19 origins, and if I have to file an ARCA to clarify that for the record, I absolutely will. CutePeach (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "The US government maintains the claim that the WIV was doing bioweapons research, which was perhaps for defensive purposes, but we can't know. Perhaps we will never know." CutePeach 6th June 2021. Not "nothing"? -- Colin°Talk 13:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * that diff does not show me "promoting conspiracy theories", so your accusation is a personal attack, to which I am allowed to respond. Here are the diffs    [​​https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=prev&oldid=1031339909] where I provided sources describing a US government demarche making those allegations, and the only POV I expressed was that we can't know, and likely never will know if they are true. The way some editors conflate allegations with facts and then confound editor POV with source POV is a persistent problem on Wikipedia, and WP:MEDRSNOT advises to simply use attribution to prevent or resolve these pointless disputes. If you look at the last two diffs, it was very clear what I was, and not, suggesting. I have no time to appeal my TBAN to ARBCOM, but I do think it is important they hear a case about the persistent abuse of MEDRS and FRINGE. CutePeach (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * From WP:UNDUE: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. If the article is about all side effects, then undue weight has clearly been given to five specific rare side effects above the common ones. Hence why I mention the issue of the article title not making clear that the article is written exclusively about the severe adverse events.
 * If you disagree that strongly to threaten ARBCOM, please do so. If not, please strike the threat. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will be requesting an ARBCOM case, and between now and then, I think you should strike your WP:GAMING accusation below. The NBC article quoting Dr Poland may very well be a ​​WP:PRIMARYNEWS source, but I didnt use MEDRS to debunk, contradict, or counter MEDRS, of which three came out only later  . If you look at the WHO source in the Hearing loss section, it says clearly that a MEDORG made is a Tinnitus link with at least one vaccine. This is an area of scientific uncertainty, and if we want to cover the topic at all, we need to have a better understanding of how WP:MEDRS applies, and obviously we're not going to get that here or on the VPP. CutePeach (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I sort of get the impression that the envisioned subject is closer to "List of possible side effects that have been mentioned in the popular press" than a balanced, reality-focsed article about actual side effects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't quite agree. These all seem to be real reports of adverse effects with some level of scientific/medical scrutiny given. Just presented with far too much undue weight, as if they're the most notable side effects, rather than spending most of the time on the most common symptoms soreness, redness, rash, and inflammation at the injection site... fatigue, headache, myalgia (muscle pain), and arthralgia (joint pain). The exception being embolisms, which have their own deserved article for notability, given the Janssen suspension. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is simply not true that pointed to this AFD to suggest CutePeach promotes conspiracy theories. Why would I need to do that when they spent months doing just that wrt the origin of Covid and gain of function research and bioweapons, government cover ups, and so on. -- Colin°Talk 16:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll note here that the Further Research Is Needed trope is often used by fringeists to attempt undermine perfectly good conclusions. I do believe that this plea by scientists when they write would be better phrased - Please Do Not Cut Off My Research Funding Thank You Very Much. - Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 01:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * CutePeach is indefinitely topic banned from the Origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. If the disruption moves to another sub-topic of COVID-19, this topic ban can be extended to the full topic area by any univolved administrator. Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive291 Does anyone know if this is still in effect? Note the second part of the Arbitration enforcement ruling. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Now I see that CutePeach was reminded of the ban here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive343 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The TBAN hasn't been lifted to my knowledge. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the relevant process involves posting a note at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement with a request. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the vaccine article. I'm not qualified to say if the contents are good enough or not. I have read enough to know that COVID-19 vaccine misinformation had thrived because pro-science public health people don't talk about the actual (rare) side effects and have sometimes gone for simple narratives (vaccines are perfect, no size effects kind of simplicity). Content about side effects, if accurate, is a good thing. I therefore think a redirect is better than a delete. CT55555 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree we should have a redirect. I'd just argue that, given the current content of the article, a "delete and redirect" would be preferable. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Without having properly assessed the article, I take your comments at face value and find that agreeable. CT55555 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect (/delete). Currently this topic is handled at COVID-19 vaccine where it fits well per WP:NOPAGE. If the "Adverse events" section there becomes big enough then a consensus to WP:SPLIT may form in the usual way. Even then, that is unlikely since the adverse events differ per vaccine type. There is no need to have a standalone article, and it is particularly unfortunate the current version is a WP:POINT-making exercise about using unreliable sources for medical content. Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Blank and Redirect back to the vaccine article. I agree that a properly contextualized standalone article is possible, but this is not that, and for the time being we have much better information, presented with better context, back at the original article. PianoDan (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Blank and redirect - looks very much like a NPOV-violation fork to evade MEDRS limits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, and redirect if necessary. A discussion of side effects of the various COVID vaccines should certainly exist in Wikipedia. (And adverse effects are already presented in the articles on various vaccines.) I am less persuaded that a 'laundry list' or grab bag of symptoms and effects for multiple different pharmaceutical products is entirely helpful. I am completely unpersuaded that even if such a list could be of benefit, that this version of it would serve as a good base, for reasons already discussed above. The way that the main template is incorrectly used to link to tinnitus and viral cardiomyopathy suggests, at best, an unclear vision for how this article would or could be integrated into the rest of the encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Blank and redirect for most of the reasons above regarding weak sourcing for the contents that doesn't already have a standalone article (POVFORK, POINTy, and NOPAGE particularly). Page creator's only edit to the COVID-19 vaccine article is this one adding a reference to the fork (rather than attempting to improve the main article section, which has a section tag to expand it). The section on Tinnitus seems indicative of my concern: non-MEDRS sources saying "people speculate that the vaccine might cause Tinnitus", followed by a MEDRS systemic review and meta-analysis saying "COVID-19 has a correlation with Tinnitus, at an ER of 4.5%, CIs: 0.012–0.153". Much of the data comes from Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (and similar) reports, without the necessary context that raw submitted data is not reliable (saying The US CDC acknowledged reports of tinnitus..., potentially implying that the 'other reports' in MEDRS sources are less reliable, even as the cited source indicates rates of neurological adverse events were far higher following SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination). It comes across as WP:GAMING, using the MEDRS source as cover for the inappropriate BMI claim about the vaccine. A similar GAMING-adjacent argument is made above, paraphrased: "embolisms have their own article with strong sourcing, so this one should exist for other conditions with only weak sourcing". Bakkster Man (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete POV Fork.   (Throwing away the current content and moving the content from COVID-19_vaccine to this article would also be an acceptable solution.) ApLundell (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm concerned that the topic that the reader is really interested in while reader this article is Safety of the COVID vaccine and so this article is inclined to mislead a reader. Safety of the COVID vaccine is a natural part of the COVID-19 vaccine page. With that said, I can perhaps see an argument for an article on Controversy surrounding the COVID vaccine that looks at things from a more sociological / current affairs angle because this material might swamp the COVID-19 vaccine... but considering that this section is quite short in the article, I don't see that this is an issue. Do we think that thinking about "what the reader is likely to actually want" is a valid mode of argument. I am aware that at times this can almost become paternalistic and might be better handled with prominent "See also's" early on in the page. Kind of "if you actually want the facts about the safety go here, otherwise read on". Talpedia (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm oversimplifying to emphasise my point, but...I don't think we should be looking at it through the lens of what the reader might want as I expect that is often something polarised like "this vaccine is perfect, no side effects at all" or "this vaccine is the work of the devil" I don't think we should help people looking for over simple answers, and we should present issues as complex as they are, as clearly as we can. CT55555 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that that effect is real, I suppose I view this as being fixed by "what the reader is trying to find plus important context". The issue is if we *aren't* optimizing for what the reader is trying to find, might we be preventing the reader from asking legitimate questions and trying to influence what they are allowed to ask? Perhaps too philosophical a question. But in medical literature I often see things like "what are the potential side effects" turned into "which of the side effects can be blamed on patients" for example. I suspect, as ever, the answer will be "if in doubt follow the literature" Talpedia (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To make your discussion more concrete, look at WP:NOPAGE. That's really what this is about: separate page or combined? A strong argument for combination is this consideration: Does other information provide needed context? Having a list of side effects without talking about the benefits is unlike anything else we do in medicine. It's always a risk-benefit discussion, so keeping the risks separate from the benefits hurts both discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess it all comes down to context, which sort of assumes why someone is likely to be reading a page. This risks descending off topic but COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy does just list all of the non existent side effects while ignoring the actual adverse events. So I would say only showing one side of the risk benefit trade off is quite standard ("all of these things are lies, so it must be safe right?") . But yeah, I'm pro redirect on this one, but might be in favour of page along the lines of Controversy surrounding COVID-19 vaccine from a more sociological angle should someone have the desire to make one Talpedia (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Blank and Redirect. I tried to fix the glaring omissions and add balance in the hearing loss section but that leaves much of the text in need of a rewrite. It would be preferable to expand the section of the vaccine article. --mikeu talk 22:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the diff --mikeu talk 04:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * blank and redirect per mikeu--Ozzie10aaaa (talk)
 * please can you check this review article on Tinnitus as a COVID-19 vaccine side effect and reconsider your WP:BLAR !vote. Instead of deleting this content, we could be moving it to the COVID-19 vaccine article as others suggest. CutePeach (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * sure Ill read it during the weekend--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, with n=4, this review seems focused on identifying the causal mechanism of the side-effect, rather than comparative odds ratios. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Tinnitus review referred to in this discussion treats VAERS reports as if Correlation equals Causation. To me, that automatically disqualifies it from being acceptable. The paltry acknowledgement of this in the conclusions of that review is simply not enough. - Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 01:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Same with the "2 out of 4 patients had glaucoma, so it's a risk factor". It's just plain underpowered. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. COVID vaccines are different in their mechanisms of action and thus in their adverse effect profiles. Individual adverse effect profiles are probably best placed on the pages of individual vaccines. COVID vaccines as such are not a pharmacologically homogenous class the way we can talk about e.g. the adverse effects of COX inhibitors (which are all quite similar). Phrasing the article like this invites WP:FRINGE content and endless (and pointless) debate. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Week Keep This could be developed into a better article if a clear distinction is made between misinformation and actual side effects. But that might be hard to do. X-Editor (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. The topic may prove out to be needed, someday, but split is premature. And even if it wasn't, this version is hopelessly hobbled by poor sourcing and would be a candidate for WP:TNT. - MrOllie (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear POV fork. If anything in it is adequately sourced (and would not be undue) it could perhaps be merged into the relevant section of the main article. Brunton (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to COVID-19 vaccine. It's adequately covered under that article; no need for a split.  -- Jayron 32</b> 11:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - given how different many of the vaccines are from each other, a generic article has little meaning (not to mention other issues that have been raised). Any side-effects should be discussed in the article for a particular vaccines - which I note is already the case in the lead of Novavax COVID-19 vaccine, for example. Nfitz (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to COVID-19 vaccine.Craigwikiman (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: Not sure if it's been mentioned here, but if not, this AfD was linked to from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine on the 19th. jp×g 23:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd take that as a good thing. That's an unbiased way to get more eyes on this AfD discussion. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 23:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alexbrn, WAID and many other experienced editors. The highlighting of affects that are merely "user-reported" in this article is wrong. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 01:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * and as clarified for the benefit for experienced editors, the particular side effect they brought up, namely the tinnitus, is also reported by MEDORG and MEDRS. Its still not enough to put any statement of fact in Wikivoice, but it's certainly not only user-reported. CutePeach (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete as a fork as noted by several editors, and because of NOTEVERYTHING per . As a science teacher I am dismayed by the myths and misconceptions passed on by this article. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination. In general, these are the sorts of "side effects" that are being researched and it's what people are most likely to search for. Since there is a valid redirect target, I don't really see a reason to delete rather than to create a redirect. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and re-create as redirect to Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination (or another target if appropriate; or eventually allow a properly written new article). The history is not useful, since, as pointed out by others, the article had serious issues due POVFORK and FRINGE content. Seems like a valid search term, but we don't we to be keeping bad policy-violating content like this even behind the history tab of the redirect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination in the meantime and start over as COVID-19 vaccine safety via AFC. Gimiv (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment What does "blank and redirect" mean? Redirects almost always blank the original page. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to COVID-19 vaccine is the proper recourse for now. Redirecting to Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination is incorrect as the side effects may include other effects that are not similar to those exhibited in the article. If side effect (or its research) is notable in the future and have reliable sources, this could easily be used.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   06:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.