Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumps outbreaks in the 21st 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 keep. There is a consensus that the article is not bad enough for TNT so suggest improving it. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Mumps outbreaks in the 21st century

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is in poor condition, and the subject may not be suitable for a standalone article. Mumps outbreaks are common to the point that few of them are mentioned by experts in higher quality references. The Mumps article contains meaningful information about mumps in the 21st century, so a separate article shouldn't be needed. Velayinosu (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 *  Abstain. Keep but edit The article is in very poor condition, but the information contained is broadly researched, I would hate to waste it. Is it possible to reframe this into a list? Though I agree there are simply so many cases, an article on the topic is a blackhole. Zkidwiki (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am changing my opinion to keep after reviewing List of earthquakes in 2020. I think it might be useful to establish a coherent notability inclusion criteria to better manage the list, but a list it seems valuable as nonetheless. Zkidwiki (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Incubate If the article receives significant coverage but is currently in a condition inappropriate for the mainspace, it can be sent to draft space where editors can fix it and determine it's future. Maybe renaming to Mumps outbreaks and adding in some historically significant cases. The notability as a group is debatable, it must receive significant coverage in multiple sources as a group, mumps outbreaks, sure, but mumps outbreaks in the 21st century is harder to come by. The coverage for individual events generally does not qualify for notability of the group just as articles that focus on trends without going into detail on this time period. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify - Not a very good article, but if we move it to draftspace, somebody could turn it into a good piece of work. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, if the page is moved to draft space, it will just add to the massive backlog there while being ignored by our readership and potential editors. In due course, it would then be deleted by other busybodies per WP:G13. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a very good idea to assume that stuff like that will happen. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is actually a very reasonable assumption that that could happen, which is why draftifying long-extant articles should never be an option on the table. It could serve as a perfect route to deletion with no editor discussion. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not seeing anything resembling a reason to delete in the nomination.  It is our policy that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome" and "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  See also WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:NOTPAPER. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue from my perspective is notability. Mumps is a normal childhood illness in countries that do not vaccinate against it, and mumps outbreaks are common enough that it is not possible to list all of them. If the article were restricted to outbreaks that meet some criterion, then it would be more manageable but then it could likely easily be merged into the main mumps article, so why even have the article at that point? Velayinosu (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep This page should be judged as a list rather than a regular article. It seems to satisfy the second criterion of the common selection criteria, "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria".  The guideline says "Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their 'parent' topic", but this list seems too big for that.  It is questioned whether mumps outbreaks in the 21st century specifically is a notable topic, but limiting the list to the 21st century could be an editorial decision to keep the list size manageable and exclude periods for which sources might not exist.
 * Personally, I get a lot of encyclopedic value out of this list. I tend to think of mumps as a disease that's defeated in first-world countries, yet seeing just so many outbreaks listed is confronting, and drives the point home that this battle is ongoing.  Lists like this may have tremendous value for the vaccine-hesitant. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This could work as a list; we might need to argue a bit on the Talk page about what the inclusion criteria should be, but that's a day-to-day editing affair, not grounds for deletion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly notable per above discussion; I don't think it's so bad it rates a WP:TNT. I don't object to a list, move, or re-naming. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 13 November 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.