Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China COVID-19 cover-up allegations


 * 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 merge to COVID-19 misinformation by China. Merge anything of value and redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China as WP:ATD.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

China COVID-19 cover-up allegations

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

One of the most egregious coatrack articles that I've come across in my fifteen years on Wikipedia, and frankly, it's an embarassment. It was born as a POV fork, and should never have been moved out of draftspace in the state it currently is, let alone what it was like six months ago. Sceptre (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Sceptre (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Sceptre (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China, which has a more coherent scope and is overall much better written. – bradv 🍁  18:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Different topic. One is about false information. The other is about information hiding. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China, as above.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Article title in the discussion title is wrong. The "Allegations" was added for a couple off days and then removed. It is not there presently. Not sure how to handle that. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems false. The current discussion is on the article China COVID-19 cover-up allegations. If you have something else in mind, please comment there. Alexbrn (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get it. It was moved a third time just before this AfD was started, and the article still had the old title internally. Sorry for my confusion. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China per the above, as it is less of a disaster. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has authoritative sourcing -- NPR, BBC, AP, etc. No merge works as the topic is different from any merge that has been proposed. Evidence of a cover-up is indisputable; we even have the smoking gun, complete with threats of "harsh punishment" for anyone who does not comply.

 CNN "The truthtellers China created a story of the pandemic. These people revealed details Beijing left out." Designed with a censorship theme. Financial Times "Coronavirus: the cost of China’s public health cover-up" Axios "Timeline: The early days of China's coronavirus outbreak and cover-up" AP "China clamps down in hidden hunt for coronavirus origins" Includes inadvertently released documents threatening severe punishment for anyone who releases information without high-level permission. Story says this was done on orders from Xi Jinping. PBS "China's COVID Secrets (full documentary)" Money quote in the second minute: "To this day, the Chinese Government insists that in the fight against COVID-19, it has acted with openness, transparency and responsibility and in a timely manner. Over the past year, we've been interviewing doctors, scientists, experts, and public health officials involved in the response, and their accounts paint a different picture."


 * Also, a comment on the proposal to "redirect" to COVID-19 misinformation by China. The problem here is that most of the content in this article is off-topic at that article. The portions on delayed release of the virus sequence, arrest or disappearance of journalists, control of domestic research, actions against foreign research, disputes with other countries over proposed inquiries, and noncooperation with the second phase of the WHO investigation, are all off topic at the misinformation article. Added Dec. 21: For this reason, the claim of "POV Fork" is also false, as a POV fork is by definition a different article about the same topic. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing redirecting with merging. In the former case, the content gets deleted and the article becomes a redirect. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If Adoring Nany is correct that the content here is off-topic in the proposed redirect destination, then redirect would be a mistake though right? We should only redirect if the topic is basically the same. We should merge if there is material here that is worth keeping that would be better covered in the merge destination. If the topic is substantially different, we need to either keep and improve, or delete and lose the sourced content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to correct any misconception that a redirect would preserve this content. Editors will have to judge how (in)compatible the concepts are here with the proposed redirect target - and it seems there is some move to push for a broadening of scope by retitling the target article, so that any "cover-up" type content could be accommodated there more fittingly. Alexbrn (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a cover-up section in the Chinese government response to COVID-19 article would be as compatible there as the cover-up section in the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure article. LondonIP (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it worth considering moving the "misinformation" page into a subsection of the "cover-up" page? Considering that misinformation campaigns can be part of a cover-up, but misinformation can also simply be misinformation without being a cover-up, it gets tricky - what should be where and who should judge each piece of misinformation. And/Or is it worth explaining these concepts in the lead paragraphs? Perhaps more clearly defining the two would allow wikipedia to better filter some information from one page to the other. 2600:8804:6600:83:546C:7184:AE29:3AB2 (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that this discussion is overwhelmingly in favor of not preserving the cover-up page, I don't think that's worth considering at this point, no. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China. This article should not have been moved to mainspace in the first place. It is a mess of WP:NPOV and WP:V issues and doesn't seem to be about one consistent topic. It reads like an effort to make a case against the Chinese government rather than describing a topic in a dispassionate way. (The target article has neutrality issues too, but it's a lot better than this one.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China for consistency and NPOV. – The Grid  ( talk )  21:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect and comment – I encourage participants here to review the previous merge discussion, as it provides useful context. A sizeable number of editors argued there's content that isn't easily covered by misinformation article, so it was closed as a no-con despite its awful current state. My suggestion was to create an overarching article called "Chinese government response to COVID-19", as the coverage of China's covid response is messily spread across several articles, and this seems like a good way to retain valuable information and coordinate our content while addressing the NPOV/COATRACK issues with the selection of information here. My proposal received a positive response and was mentioned by the discussion closer, as I had started work on compiling the articles in my sandbox. Unfortunately, this was too much work for me to do alone so it languished half-finished over the last few months. Last week, while the page move discussion that led to this AfD was ongoing, left me a talk page message offering to continue this idea, and he has put together Draft:Chinese government response to COVID-19. I support redirecting this article while work on the potential new article continues; I agree with  that having such a skewed article reflects poorly on our project, although I'd equally like to ensure that well-sourced notable information is not lost. I oppose outright deletion as it's important the page history is preserved, particularly for attribution in case content is re-used/moved to a new article.  Jr8825  •  Talk  21:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. If anyone participating here would like to weigh in on or edit Draft:Chinese government response to COVID-19, please do so. I'm still in the process of refining it. It contains mergers from this article as well as from the sections National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. The plan is to condense those two existing sections into summaries and keep the majority of the content at Chinese government response to COVID-19. Obviously this article would be redirected to Chinese government response to COVID-19. I think this is a pretty well thought-out solution, and would love some further input. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 22:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge to COVID-19 misinformation by China; since the start this was a type of WP:POVFORK, a concern I previously expressed at the talk page when the article was new. The recent move helps but this is still redundant material.  I specify redirect/merge because merge could allow any important missing well sourced material to be added to the misinformation article.  As FormalDude notes, some material may also belong in other related general articles.  Finally, at the talk page several editors agreed that information blockade in China is nothing new, but that especially with the older title, the article attempted to frame this into a suggestion of special crime coverup (most notably the leak theory that has little scientific support).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China or Chinese government response to COVID-19 when created, as those other titles can result in more neutral editing, per the comments I made in the merge discussion a few months ago. I have a preference to Chinese government response to COVID-19 as some participants in the merge discussion made a point about censorship =/= misinformation. Jumpytoo Talk 04:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the new article idea, with all the information form multiple pages merged there might be a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename to Chinese government response to COVID-19. We should seek an NPOV article name, and that is the most NPOV name I have seen. It also is a better, broader article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also be good with the more neutral rename proposals above; perhaps as a merge target for BOTH article. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China. The latter may or may not require a move, but the content of the article is incomparably more neutral. I do not think there is much to save in a merge. The most egregious part of the cover-up article is that it pushes the lab leak theory thanks to selective quotes of WHO officials etc. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 17:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and the move discussion should not have been closed the way it was. Ping and . What a disgrace. Francesco espo (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would remind all users to A) respect the WP:CANVAS guidelines, and B) respect the fact that DGG has stated numerous times that they no longer would like to be involved with or pinged about this topic area. Read the room — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Close per WP:GAMING. Editors can propose Chinese government response to COVID-19 as an option in the MR discussion, once undoes their close there. AfD is not the correct procedure for renaming an article. I have filed a complaint about this in ANI. Gimiv (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sceptre's rationale above does not mention renaming and is a perfectly valid one to discuss at AfD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Gimiv, what do you mean by "the MR discussion"? I see the requested move (RM) but I don't see any relevant move review at WP:MR. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant RM, not MR. I reposted my complaint on AN. Gimiv (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Per "common outcomes" listed in the deletion process for AfD: Issues to be addressed by changing the page title (and perhaps then expanding or improving its content). This can happen at AFD especially, if the article could be suitable for Wikipedia, but is created under an inappropriate title, and was nominated for deletion, but consensus agrees it is fixable if the title is changed. This is perhaps the best procedure as it removes possible redundancy. – The Grid  ( talk )  04:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Nothing about this proposal is out of order. Merge/Deletion discussions can take place concurrently with other discussions. Even if you think Sceptre's close portrayed bias (I'm not sure I completely disagree), any editor is freely allowed to make AfD proposals. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Draft:Chinese government response to COVID-19 - An article topic of "allegations" is obviously POV. --  Green  C  22:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, there are valid scopes of allegations. e.g. Allegations of unlawful campaigning in the 2016 EU referendum ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * that is an excellent point. I have created Draft:Wikipedia:Notability (allegations) in order to address the issue. LondonIP (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is basically NEVER a good idea to start creating policies/guidelines based on disputes. It will never turn out well, as the resulting draft will be very affected by this dispute, and will lose generalizability. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, when policy changes are proposed without citing examples, they are deemed to be "too abstract", as was observed in the recent WP:VPP discussion about the persistent abuse of WP:FRINGE. All policies were forged in the fiery fires of dispute, and I would welcome you to collaborate on this draft, so that we can get it approved. It may come in handy in future DRVs on the subject of standalone allegations articles. LondonIP (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China. I don't see much of a difference between "misinformation" and "coverup" in this context.VR talk 03:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China. MarioGom (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also consider redirect to Draft:Chinese government response to COVID-19 if that article was in main space. MarioGom (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China, as per many other editors here have stated:clearly this article is duplicative. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China. This is a blatant POV fork. It has some good content, so where not repetitive, it should be merged to the less POV and more substantial/linked misinformation article. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural close and wait for the outcome of the Move Review. Keep or Move cover-up content to Chinese government response to COVID-19. OP improperly closed a RM, moved the article, and nominated it article for deletion. With 15 years experience, they should have known better. LondonIP (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Move Review was procedurally closed to await the result of this discussion. No consensus exists in favor of your view that the rename discussion was improperly closed. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noting that the MR is also still active - the procedural close there was overturned almost immediately (though the 'closed' remained in the section header for an additional 2 hours, which might have caused some confusion). I wonder if the best option at this point would be to procedurally close BOTH of them, then start (a) centralised discussion(s) on the article talk page? That couldn't possibly be more chaotic than the status quo, and I don't think a procedural close of either one of these ongoing discussions but not the other could happen at this point without all hell breaking loose. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:907D:4451:8F72:3CE1 (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC) — 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:907D:4451:8F72:3CE1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You cannot unmove a deleted page, but you can delete a moved/unmoved page. So the AfD trumps the move review. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If it gets redirected I suppose the redirect could be renamed. Pointless maybe, but that way, everyone is happy? Alexbrn (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * procedural close/keep: multiple reasons: 1. AfD is not cleanup. If you believe there is something wrong with the article, fix it. Dont bring it to AfD as long as topic is notable. 2. The nominator of this AfD closed the RM. Their own view towards the article is biased. This can be seen at the move review, which has been closed as supervote. 3. Most of the participants have not provided any rationale here, those who have, have raised issues like coatrack, POV, and conspiracies. They have not mentioned "lack of notability". The titles, and the subject of the article has been covered in reliable sources, covered enough to establish notability. If you have some issue with article's content, you are more than welcome to fix it. 4.If you have issues with conspiracy theories, wikipedia does have articles on conspiracy theories as long as they are notable/covered in RS. The subject here is not a conspiracy theory, there are proofs/evidences out there proving China unsuccessfully tried to cover-up. 5. The article being suggested as target, and the one at AfD are totally different. One article is about China hiding truth, the other is China propagating lies. The target article doesnt even mention Li Wenliang. 0. Further detailed argument/analysis by Renat can be seen in the three comments (below each-other) by Renat at the original RM. pinging participants from RM discussion:, , , , , , , , , , , , , as the previous attempt failed as it was not signed. Kindly feel free to ping the ones if missed somebody. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My ultimate article preference is a Chinese government response to COVID-19 that looks like User:Jr8825/sandbox 2 (which was proposed by in the original merge discussion). The current draft by FormalDude is probably a more realistic short-term goal, though, which can be expanded on with time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I ultimately agree that would be ideal. I think merging into the FormalDude article is a good short term plan. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China. Some of the content is, in my view, worth keeping and has some suitable references from reliable sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian and Financial Times. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect, there is nothing useful to merge as the entire article reeks of POV and SYNTH. I think the only use for content of this article would be using it as a bad example, an NPOV disaster. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Outrageously POV. This page is clearly just an attempt to insert someone's (I haven't looked at who created the page) political views into Wikipedia. There's been a proliferation of these types of absurd opinion pages about China, and it's really becoming a major problem for the project. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete; obvious WP:COATRACK / WP:POVFORK. The non-neutral title ("cover-up" implies something is being intentionally concealed) isn't enough of a WP:COMMONNAME to be justifiable. Nothing to redirect and the name is too specific to be useful. --Aquillion (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep meets GNG. Merging into a fork article does no service to our readers. There is a a difference between misinformation and disinformation. — Ched (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keeping it in its current location is the issue here though. It's a WP:POVFORK. – The Grid  ( talk )  19:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * which page is this page a fork of? And what is the POV you don't agree with? That the Chinese covered-up the early outbreak fo the virus and research into origins? Those allegations are put as statements of fact in several RS mentioned in the RM discussion. LondonIP (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge Right now the "misinformation" page does not fully detail the detained and missing journalists like the cover-up page does. If this disappears from wikipedia something went wrong with this merge. Can a cover-up section be created on the mis or dis information page? Side question, where should the link be directed on Cover-up? 2600:1700:8660:E180:D873:FC3C:35E8:9942 (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC) — 2600:1700:8660:E180:D873:FC3C:35E8:9942 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Grid (talk • contribs)
 * Redirect (to COVID-19 misinformation by China as per other redirect votes above) - I remember the case with the "lab leak likely" essay of the author and how most of its content was generally considered unacceptable for Wikipedia yet it was kept due to its place in the "essays" section as opposed to mainspace. Well - here we are, those same fringe views are now being brought into mainspace. "I told you so" aside, this article seems to be attempting some sort of POV fork and its existence simply isn't justified in light of COVID-19 misinformation by China already existing and being more developed. Perhaps move some of the more salvageable contents to the "Initial response" section of that same article. The very concept of this article should preclude its creation - not only is "alleged" in the title MOS:WTW without context (and it, as the title, by definition cannot have context) but the entire topic fits neatly under "misinformation" (after all, suppressing truthful information would be misinformation) and does not have enough content to justify a fork of this sort. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Allegations" is appropriate in this context as it's an assertion of wrongdoing, as MOS:ALLEGED points out. MOS is a guideline anyway, the relevant policy here is WP:TITLE, particularly the section on WP:NDESC, which editors often seem to miss. There's an explicit exemption for accusations of crimes, although this raises further questions about whether this article's scope is appropriate. Jr8825  •  Talk  19:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep – Notable subject backed up by reliable sources. Those who allege that the title is somehow inherently POV have evidently not looked at any of the sources. I don't support a redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China because I don't believe efforts to cover up the emerging pandemic falls within the scope of that article. Citobun (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * in my opinion, the suggestion that "efforts to cover up the emerging pandemic [don't] fall within the scope of that article [misinformation]" is the strongest argument for keep. However, the scope/title of this article is inappropriate per WP:NDESC given that it's treated by a large proportion of RS as an accusation rather than as a definitive fact. I made a similar argument in a failed RM at Uyghur Genocide, but in that case it's certainly far clearer that the Chinese government has committed a crime. The substance of the accusation here is unclear (precisely what's said to have been covered up varies across sources, a point which makes quite well below). An article solely about a government's cover-up is quite unprecedented and I don't think the sources are WP:EXCEPTIONAL. These concerns have been around from the start of this article, in the MfD of the original draft prior to the move to mainspace, and in the merge discussion I linked above. Neither a page move nor an attempted merge have remedied the situation or improved the content, most of which is well-sourced but which cumulatively and consistently verges into SYNTH/POV, as  illustrates below. I think the view of most editors in favour of redirecting/deleting here is similar to WP:TNT: the article as it stands can't be readily transformed into a comprehensive, neutral summary, and is damaging to keep in its current state. (A new article on Draft:Chinese government response to COVID-19 is a good place for this content, as I've suggested before, and I'm continuing to provide feedback on its development.) As I mentioned above, I strongly oppose outright deletion so the article's content and history is preserved for re-use elsewhere, which ensures that nothing is "lost". It's also copied into two drafts, one in my sandbox and another version currently in the draftspace, so as long as the attribution is safeguarded the content isn't going to disappear. If content isn't visible to readers for a short period while it's being integrated into a more suitable context, that's fine in my book – Wikipedia doesn't need to be perfect at any specific moment in time.  Jr8825  •  Talk  19:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * comment those who are invoking the POV, kindly explain why/how this is a POV. Wikipedia sources the article to reliable sources. The reliable sources say there is a cover-up, and that's what is in the article. No POV. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll bite. The section China_COVID-19_cover-up_allegations starts by On 15 July 2021, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis had been prematurely discarded by the World Health Organization. He proposed a second phase of WHO investigation, which he said should take a closer look at the lab leak idea... That is absolutely not a NPOV representation of the CNN source; the only attributed part that mentions the lab leak is a member of the WHO team who helped oversee the original investigation said the Wuhan lab leak theory did "not receive the same depth of attention and work" as the animal hypothesis. - so it is not the Director-General but an unnamed staffer, and they did not say it was prematurely discarded (the aliens-did-it theory did not "receive the same depth of attention" either).
 * Yes, that one instance might be fixable, but if you fix everything wrong, there is no article left. The reliable sources say there is a cover-up, and that's what is in the article. is begging the question. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * From the NYT source later in that paragraph. The url that was in the article now points to something different, but the wayback machine still has it Chinese officials said on Thursday that they were shocked and offended by a World Health Organization proposal to further investigate whether the coronavirus emerged from a lab in Wuhan, exposing a widening rift over the inquiry into the origins of the pandemic.


 * Senior Chinese health and science officials pushed back vigorously against the idea of opening the Wuhan Institute of Virology to renewed investigation after the W.H.O. director-general, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, laid out plans to examine laboratories in the central city of Wuhan, where the first cases of Covid-19 appeared in late 2019.


 * Zeng Yixin, the vice minister of the Chinese National Health Commission, said at a news conference in Beijing that he was “extremely shocked” at the W.H.O. plan to renew attention on the possibility that the virus had leaked from a Wuhan lab. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing is that quote supports the sentence Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis had been prematurely discarded. It does not attribute the actions to TAG. It does not say "prematurely discarded" (which would indicate at least carelessness at the WHO), but rather "here’s a new phase of inquiry". Hell, if you read closely, it does not even say that the reason for the new investigation is a possible lab leak (such statements are attributed to Chinese officials, not given in journalist voice).
 * Maybe you could find a source that does support the sentence as written. But again, that is only one example out of many. Right now the article is in severe breach of WP:V / WP:NPOV at the point where it would need a full rewrite to be compliant if anything can be salvaged at all.
 * IMO this invalidates the WP:NOTCLEANUP / "but sources are good" argument. I could write an article about the various types of pasta around the world using the same sources - sure, sources do not support the content, but WP:SOFIXIT, do not delete it when the sources are fine, etc. Yeah, no. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I would cite WP:TNT — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Added an NPR source for the "prematurely discarded" part. This does not fit WP:TNT, which is about advocacy for personal beliefs, not about wiki articles on topics that are well covered in mainstream media.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you think its worth saving the China_COVID-19_cover-up_allegations section? Is a disappeared person a misinformation event or a cover-up event? Should these be moved to Forced_disappearance if the cover-up page is deleted? 2600:8804:6600:83:79F3:FE56:5047:39A1 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say the misinformation is the propaganda that surrounds the disappearances. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The subtle distinction between cover-up and misinformation is lost on me. How is journalists disappearance not in scope of a misinformation article? (Of course you would need to check that the sources actually support the content as written.) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How is journalists disappearance not in scope of a misinformation article? I think it probably is. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question! Probably something we should discuss considering what's being proposed haha. I'm not a linguist, but my understanding seems to be that Misinformation is purely speech. While a cover-up can be passive (which would include misinformation) or active, which can include all sorts of activities for example murder. Cover-up includes "Retaliate against hostile media" which appears to me to be within the scope of the reports concerning citizen journalists. It probably would be more diplomatic and less controversial to name the article Misinformation which is fine, my only concern is that the reports/sources dont get deleted from wikipedia. 2600:8804:6600:83:F9F7:BF7:1DA6:D7C2 (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * (copying over a comment I made at the Move Review, as it is relevant here: I would say overall it is the interpretation and SYNTH of these sources that is at issue here. For example: "On 11 January, Zhang's lab published the sequence on virological.org. Three people stated that this angered the Chinese CDC, and the Shanghai government temporarily closed Zhang's lab." compare that to what the cited articles actually say: "It was not clear whether the closure was related to the publishing of the sequencing data before the authorities." The second source cited for this sentence does not even mention the closure at all.  I stand corrected, it does, but it does so only citing anonymous rumors. This juxtaposure and composition has created the SYNTHetic conclusion deciding for the readers that the sequence release and the closure are connected. It does not name the individuals who feel this way. I genuinely have no idea where that statement came from. That's POV SYNTH. It tells the readers what to think, rather than describing to them the facts and conclusions present in our sources. That is unacceptable and it is just one instance of many in this article. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * From the AP source cited immediately after that text: On Jan. 11, a team led by Zhang, from the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, finally published a sequence on virological.org, used by researchers to swap tips on pathogens. The move angered Chinese CDC officials, three people familiar with the matter said, and the next day, his laboratory was temporarily shuttered by health authorities. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, on wikipedia, we should avoid citing single sources which only reference anonymous sources themselves. Especially for disputed and controversial statements. This is covered in WP:RSBREAKING and WP:NEWSORG. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, deleted the "angered the CDC" part. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is a POV fork to gather sources from a specific viewpoint instead of from a specific topic. There are just a handful of sources about a cover-up as the primary topic (and not in bylines), and between them it is divided over things like early cases cover-up, origins cover-up, deaths cover-up, eventually there are just one or two notable sources left for a handful of allegations. And 'hiding information about early covid-19 outbreak' and 'inhibiting the research on the origin of covid-19' aren't even connected by anything in the article, then why aren't they separate articles? Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, this basically sums it up. There's some lawyering higher up in this discussion about the definition of a POV fork, but at the end of the day the article is held together by a point of view rather than a topic. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge to COVID-19 misinformation by China or Chinese government response to COVID-19 when created per my own previous comments at the merge discussion on the article talk page (in addition to the significant POVFORK concerns already expressed and detailed by other contributors to this discussion: something being "notable" does not mean it is best served by a silly POVFORK). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Draft:Chinese government response to COVID-19 when created. While I agree not a lot is salvageable, some content certainly is, and this title has a more accurate scope than COVID-19 misinformation by China for the content of this article. It also includes content from some other articles, effectively being a three-way merge. Take a look at Draft talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 and feel free to help out please if you can. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 05:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge content with COVID-19 lab leak theory and COVID-19 misinformation by China. I voiced concern about this topic not being covered on the "lab leak" page, and the "coverup" language invokes the not-yet-or-never-will-be-proven lab leak theory. The broad 'misinformation' page of course can cover more banal geopolitical spats that would be expectsd in any sort of global pandemic. (I have no choice as a dynamic IP, but WP:SPA disclosure...2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)
 * Delete or redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China as per POV issues. ToeSchmoker (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * to COVID-19 misinformation by China or Draft:Chinese government response to COVID-19 (if created) and any relevant content to wherever it best fits. I share the WP:POVFORK concerns. I support the calls, many from Keep voters, to ensure that material about Chinese journalists being arrested or disappeared be retained in an article somewhere. Firefangledfeathers 23:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to multiple articles. The article is actually very well-written and generally maintains a neutral POV, but the organization and inclusion of different items calls its neutrality into question. I agree this could be a WP:POVFORK or coatrack, a quite subtle one at that. Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2021 (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.