Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the bodies pile high


 * 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 Premiership of Boris Johnson. Consensus is against keeping this, but for covering it somewhere appropriate, which most people here seem to think is Premiership of Boris Johnson. That doesn't exclude mentioning in a COVID-related article also if editors want to do so. I can't give much weight to the BLP concerns because the arguments that this alleged statement by Johnson is reliably sourced haven't been rebutted.  Sandstein  06:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Let the bodies pile high

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable enough for a separate standalone article, fails WP:GNG. Possible merge to British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic or Boris Johnson.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 20:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 20:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge with British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic: Per WP:DIVERSE and WP:SENSATIONAL. The controversy itself is probably enough to merit mentioning somewhere, but not to have a stand-alone article, as most of the references appear to be parroting each other.  Kncny11  (shoot) 21:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTNEWS policy: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". This article is about one comment that a country's political leader might have uttered. This sort of thing is reported all the time, then quickly fades away. There's nothing unusual about this one. Maybe it will become something of key importance in UK politics (if it does, it could be revived in some form, with a title that would have to be considered more carefully), but at the moment it's just another story. EddieHugh (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Premiership of Boris Johnson. I don't think this meets WP:NEVENT yet, although it is impossible to know whether it will in the future if it still receives attention. British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic is already pretty bloated (195k) so not a great merge target and likewise, the main Johnson article can't go into any detail about it. SmartSE (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Premiership of Boris Johnson, as per SmartSE. But may yet deserve mention at "Refurb central". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Neither verifiable (the only sources are word-of-mouth), nor necessarily true given he has denied it, including in the House. Also note WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEARTEST, the latter of which almost certainly will not pass. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non verifiable per Spa-Franks. Also reeks of BLP issues. JackFromWisconsin (talk &#124; contribs) 02:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per above. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  03:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, should've been speedied. Serious BLP violation, presenting mere allegation as way more important than it is. It can be added as a passing mention in the Premiership of Boris Johnson article, but nothing more. Also, that's the most ridiculous opening sentence I've seen in a long time, and I examine India-related stubs from 2007... W. Tell DCCXLVI converse &#124; fings wot i hav dun 03:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Your rationales completely mistate what WP:V and WP:BLP are about. Multiple reliable sources have discussed this quote so it is definitely verifiable and not a BLP violation. We are not arbiters of WP:TRUTH, we simply repeat what others have said. SmartSE (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, don't need a whole article on a quote that hasn't even been verified yet that there has been a mild level of discussion about. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Premiership of Boris Johnson -- The Anome (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You created it. Why do you not want it to remain? (Related if tangential question: why did you create it?) EddieHugh (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe they have reconsidered. W. Tell DCCXLVI converse &#124; fings wot i hav dun 10:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. We don't create a new article for every bit of sensationalised and unsubstantiated hearsay and tittle-tattle stirred up by disgruntled former advisors and supporters of opposition parties - do we? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Premiership of Boris Johnson per SmartSE. -Gazamp (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. The comment surfaced in a tabloid, and its only evidence is tabloid-based. The BBC/Sky saying "the Daily Mail said" doesn't make them independent in their own right, they are simply re-reporting a WP:TABLOID and WP:DAILYMAIL story. Spa-Franks (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Precisely why this has BLP issues. If a given source is unreliable, then it shouldn't be relied on. If a reliable source reports on a topic by saying "per [unreliable source]", then that is no different. If this can be verified by WP:RS, then a short sentence on Premiership of Boris Johnson or another related article would be the most appropriate. JackFromWisconsin (talk &#124; contribs) 13:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * While it may have originated in the Daily Mail, it has been corroborated by other reliable sources - not simply then repeating what the Daily Mail reported. See this for example from the New Yorker: The newspaper’s reporting, which was corroborated by the BBC, ITV News, and other British media. SmartSE (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Premiership of Boris Johnson Even if unsubstantiated it's an important career moment. The context is Johnson's decision not to lockdown at the time, a major controversy about his Premiership.Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge relevant parts to appropriate articles. LK (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Snow delete tabloid rumours and gossip clearly do not pass the notability threshold for an independent article. --RaviC (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The remark is corroborated by BBC and ITV and reported globally. Premiership of Boris Johnson says "In April 2021 Johnson denied allegations made by the Daily Mail that he had said that he would rather have seen "bodies pile high in their thousands" than approve a third lockdown." Suggest "..Daily Mail and others" linking to refs on the page under discussion. Date of comment to be added.Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The remark may have been reported by the Daily Mail first, but in this ITV News article Robert Peston says that more two witnesses, who both insist that they didn't brief the Daily Mail, have corrobated the Daily Mail's account, suggesting at least three sources and (to me) that this isn't just Daily Mail gossip. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I might be missing something, but I believe that the remark passes WP:GNG. The barrier is actually lower than some of the comments above might seem to suggest for significant coverage: ""[s]ignificant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Pretty much every UK news source has written at least one article about it (for example, BBC News has this article, this article, this shorter article, this shorter article and this article which is at least one third focused on the comment and as can be seen by this search result, the comment has not been limited to that selection of articles in the BBC's coverage) and so it is clear that it passes that precondition; while no book has been written about the comment, it's plainly not just a trivial footnote like the Bill Clinton example in WP:GNG. It's also worth noting that notability is not temporary, as per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Additionally, its overwhelming coverage combined with Peston's article cited above also make it clear to me that the remark is reliable, independent of the subject and, finally, that there are multiple secondary sources. Whether the remark warrants its own page is something that I'm still not sure about, but I wanted to put forward the argument that it does pass WP:GNG. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You missed out "Presumed", which is part of GNG. It has a link to WP:NOT, part of which is WP:NOTNEWS, which states: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". There's lots more there on why including what a famous person says isn't worthwhile (even as part of an article – not just as an article topic). So, no, it doesn't meet all of GNG. EddieHugh (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I did miss out presumed. That's because I was only considering WP:GNG by itself and, perhaps foolishly, not all of GNG, as you point out, if that makes sense. Looking at at WP:NOTNEWS (which I agree applies), I can see how the remark might contravene news reports (at present, it's difficult to see what long term impact this comment might have, in comparison to, say, bigotgate), though not the other three points. I also can't see where it says that including what a famous person says isn't worthwhile? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge into either Premiership of Boris Johnson or British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, whichever is more relevant. Whether true or not the remark was widely reported, so is notable in that sense, but not enough for it to have its own article. This is Paul (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment/info Other comments also alleged at same time https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-said-he-would-let-covid-rip-in-lockdown-row-fs0ffz5mg WP should summarise?Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep it, it’s important. Or at least merge it with conservative/boris Johnson’s Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.195.98.180 (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge with Premiership of Boris Johnson (second choice: merge with British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic). Fleeting news coverage of a story originated by the unreliable Daily Mail. Later BBC and ITV repetition of sources for these claims make it permissible to mention, but not notable. WP:NOTNEWS. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I really don't understand why somebody though a single comment was worthy of an entire article. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (Single alleged comment, even.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per This is Paul's rationale. DMT biscuit (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2021 (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.