Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contaminated haemophilia blood products


 * 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 Speedy Keep, disruptive vandalism from indef-blocked user.   Horologium  (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Contaminated haemophilia blood products

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

Just an attack piece. Insufficiently sourced (newspapers are not enough for accusations of this type). Ricky28618 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure who is being attacked, the article is well-referenced with very respected sources and this history isn't really disputed.  My only concern is the title.  The disambig page Tainted blood scandal lists several related articles and the terminology should be standardized.  Maybe the nominator could clarify the nature of the attack and more precisely why newspapers are not enough to support the article. Drawn Some (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the GA review on the talk page, scholar sources are appropriate, not newspaper articles. It's clearly not appropriate to allow attack pages like this. -- Ricky28618 (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not quite what was said by the reviewer. How is this an attack article?  Please be specific.  The topic is notable.  There are very reliable sources such as major newspapers.  If there is untrue information or if you feel the article is POV, clean it up.  Also you might consider making sure that a bureaucrat is aware of your other identity if you're going to use a different account to nominate referenced articles on notable topics for deleteion. Drawn Some (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, an important piece of history that is discussed in many reliable sources. Useful references would be and   The current article lacks reliable sources and uses statements by lawyers involved in damages claims as facts, but the topic itself is notable. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are discussions about Canada only. That belongs at Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada, not this article. -- Ricky28618 (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Try and  as well, there are a wealth of sources on this topic. This is a good historical review. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Nominator has been blocked indefinitely for abuse of editing privileges so this might qualify for a speedy close. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This should not be deleted as an attack article as the facts are well documented. If BBC News and the New York Times are not reliable sources, what are? I'd support snowballing it. Novangelis (talk) 02:18, 3 July 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.