Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gendered impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 17:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Gendered impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This isn't even useful as a redirect. It should be covered in a few sentences in the article on the disease itself. The domestic violence aspect is already covered in an entire other article of very specific scope, Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on domestic violence. There is no lasting notability in this topic. The way that the disease (coronavirus disease 2019) affects men and women differently is a medical/scientific issue about the disease, not a social issue about the pandemic itself. This article is largely based on one source that discusses social issues that women face during the pandemic. Other sources are about the medical differences (not about the pandemic, but about the disease) or about other diseases (one is about zika and ebola?) Natureium (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom, to the main article and the domestic violence article where appropriate. Most of the medical data on how the virus impacts different genders is well-sourced and useful, but the rest of this article is not. —&#8288; 烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 01:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think that this article has lasting notability, as more studies related to this topic will become available in the future. Researches regarding sex differences in COVID-19 infection are underway and they cannot be included in the main article for Coronavirus disease 2019 because it is already too long with details about other aspects of the disease. In my opinion, the domestic violence article should be merged to this one, because this article covers a wider scope. The sections on women in leadership and women being vulnerable to COVID-19 exposure cannot be merged into any other article because they specifically belong to the gendered impact of COVID-19. -- Netha  (talk)  07:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The Lancet has an article on the topic: COVID-19: the gendered impacts of the outbreak. Such notability does not expire; it only become greater as more is written. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article includes different aspects and topics of the inequal impact of the pandemic based on gender. The domestic violence deserves an article by itself, given the different national statistics and approaches to the problem. Scann (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As per the above, the importance of the issues presented in the article will only become more substantial as more worldwide evidence is presented in the article. Having individual articles on different aspects of multifaceted phenomena allow better translation possibilities between languages. – Susannaanas (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I see several articles about the impact of the 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic of lesser relevance than this one. More and more research is being carried out on various aspects of the pandemic, research which will have general interest for longer time than the pandemic itself. I think domestic violence could be merged into this article. Tanzania (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Clear keep this is a major subject of conversation from multiple dimensions, not just gendered violence -- but gendered labor and work, health care for women (i.e. the attempt to change abortion laws in the U.S. during the crisis, etc). I don't understand the rational of the nominator. Moreover, this is being interpreted by major UN organizations as such: i.e. https://www.unfpa.org/resources/covid-19-gender-lens . There is going to be a lasting impact of this topic, and its worth treating it as a subject, Sadads (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notability is determined by reliable sources writing about the topic. The article's current sources include a Lancet article called "COVID-19: the gendered impacts of the outbreak", and two New York Times articles, "Does Covid-19 Hit Women and Men Differently? U.S. Isn't Keeping Track" and "In Italy, Coronavirus Takes a Higher Toll on Men". These demonstrate clear notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the impact of the pandemic, but of the disease itself. It does appear that men are more severely affected than women, but that's not what this article is about. This article is about social issues, not medical or scientific ones. Natureium (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is a lot more information to add to this topic from UN Women, UNFPA etc who are publishing on this topic. John Cummings (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, covered in sources. For example the Spanish codeword for domestic violence escape during the lockdown received much attention: .--Eostrix (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: widely covered topic. Note that domestic violence specifics are covered by Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on domestic violence, but that's far from all gender-related issues. --MarioGom (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep & close. The result is clear. Also, let people some weeks to develop their articles. Yug (talk)  15:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the reasons already given above. -Yupik (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2020 (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.