Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diseases and epidemics of the 19th century


 * 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   no consensus. This pretty much comes down to the delete side arguing, "it's badly written", and the keep side arguing, "we agree it's badly written, but it's a good topic". My gut tells me the strength of the Keep arguments are sufficient to justify a clean Keep consensus, but I'm going to wimp out and call this No Consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Diseases and epidemics of the 19th century

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability concerns. I take the view that being an unsourced medical article is an A7able offense. Laun chba  ller  09:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - It has lots of fringe material. That's why I had PRODED it first. Still no improvement.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 09:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of history-related deletion discussions  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 09:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete of possible redirect to History of emerging infectious diseases, where the topic is covered.TheLongTone (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely unsourced, as it is written this article strikes me as WP:OR ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀ 10:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not even referenced. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 12:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. It owuld help if people stuck to valid arguments at deletion. "Unsourced medical article" is hardly valid for a historical overview, "lots of fringe material" is not a deletion reason, and "unsourced" or "unreferenced" aren't deletion reasons either. WP:OR and "better covered elsewhere" are perfectly acceptable deletion (or redirect) reasons though :-) Fram (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Terribly written currently, but the title is pure gold, and should not suffer the indignity of deletion. Purely a matter of whether or not you believe in WP:TNT or not. I do not. It is not policy. Current state of the article does not reflect its potential.
 * The article is focused on the occurrence in the 19th C, of diseases which have plagued humankind for time immemorial. History of emerging infectious diseases defined its emerging diseases as only recently being recognized; it is obviously not a congruent focus and therefore not an appropriate merge target. Cholera is the only disease the two articles have in common, out of ten diseases.
 * OR in the title? Is it OR to say there were epidemics in the 19th Century? Seriously. Some things are empirically observable. OR in the article is a matter for the Talk page or an RFC. Anarchangel (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is all very sad. The topic is potentially very worthwhile (and how could anyone dream that it is not notable?). However, the content is weak, very weak. Significant parts are not OR but they are unreferenced. Even the content that, if referenced, would be worth keeping is not well written and it would (for me at any rate) be easier to start again. A redirect would generally be a good solution to this but I simply can't find an appropriate target. I think what would be for the best would be to delete with a comment that a new article on this topic would be very welcome. We would then be more or less back to where we were yesterday morning. If the user requested userify, I think we could agree to this. Thincat (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The correct term is 'delete without prejudice'. I would prefer it be AfCd rather than userspaced because then the 'time limit' of WP:G13 may help spur the article creator on to 'hurry up' (if that makes any sense) and then it could be guaranteed that it enters articlespace in an acceptable state.-- Laun  chba  ller  21:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Amateurish ("Cholera was the biggest epidemic of the 19th century"?) and totally unsourced. I suppose List of 19th century epidemics could be constructed with actual, specific outbreaks, but there's nothing worth salvaging here. WP:BLOWITUP. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Anarchangel (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe too much caffeine. And I was very pleased with myself, obviously. What I meant to say is, I have improved the article considerably. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Massively notable topic with lots of reliable sources. All other problems can be clearly dealt with editing, and thus, per our deletion policy, we need to fix by editing, not deletion. Sources can be added, work can be done to improve its state. Destroying stuff is easy, but it is not a solution endorsed by our policies.-- cyclopia speak! 13:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This article is an WP:ESSAY, randomly selecting 4 diseases, prevalent in the 19th century. It might be acceptable as part of a series, but the diseases also existed in the 17th and 18th centuies, though may have been less prevalent in some cases.  Some have subsequently been eliminated in the West.  This does not have the feel of an encyclopaedic article.  If there were useful content not found eleswhere in WP, I would have voted to merge the sections into the main article on the disease, but I doubt there is anyting worth merging.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not present the four as unique to the 19th century. Five of the seven cholera epidemics occurred in the 19th C, but the article specifically states that two happened in the 20th C. I am not an expert, but I would be willing to bet that these are the four biggest killers in the 19th century, so they are hardly "random". Any suggestions as to other strongly sourceable disease epidemics that should be added, would be welcome. No diseases had been eradicated in the nineteenth century, germ theory being in its infancy. Whereas being eradicated in the West in modern times is almost tautological for epidemic diseases. What is your point? The same goes for your last point: "feel" of an article is not even much of a helpful hint on the Talk page, and we should not have to be addressing it at AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Notable, encyclopedic topic that cannot be contained by any single parent topic, necessitating its very existence.  Summary style sections indicate that the majority of the article is already sourced elsewhere.  I can see no valid objection to the existence of this article, and frankly, the opposes have me questioning the integrity of the AfD process itself. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Viriditas and Cyclopia. This is a worthy topic, and poorly written is not a reason for deleting.--LT910001 (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - cleanup is not a reason for deletion. This is a no-brainer - it is notable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:HEY, topic notable via GNG and Cyclopia's sources.  --j⚛e deckertalk 17:48, 16 June 2014 (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.