Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish government response to the COVID-19 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) — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 19:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is a coatrack for material better handled in a brief form within COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. Lots of odd claims and political point making ---Snowded TALK 19:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  ~ Amkgp  💬  19:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Nominator makes no reasoned argument as to why the problems they so cursorily allude to cannot be resolved by ordinary editing. The US news coverage has certainly identified this topic as discrete from COVID in general, due to its atypicality. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You might want to check the talk page and edit history of the article -Snowded TALK 20:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - plenty of good sources. Falls within WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - the topic passes WP:GNG and there is more than enough coverage to justify its coverage rather than merge it back into COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. W 42  21:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect/Merge per WP:DEL-REASON 5: Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate). This is a transparent WP:POVFORK, which should be obvious to anyone by simply comparing the WP:LEADs of this article and COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. I'll also note the existence of Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. TompaDompa (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Edited to add: I'm not sure the editors above me who suggested that it be kept understood that the issue at hand is that it is a WP:POVFORK considering the nominator made that point but did not use that specific term and none of the other comments seem to address that (at least not in any detail). Pinging just in case. Feel free to address this specific point. TompaDompa (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When did I ever indirectly admit it was a POVFORK? I only admitted there was a problem with the lede because I wasn't entirely sure how to word it and simply went for broke. I was also open to a complete revamp of the lede. Check out the diff I provided in the final paragraph of my vote. Love of Corey (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When did I ever indirectly admit it was a POVFORK? I'm not sure why you're asking me this; I don't know that I ever said that you did? TompaDompa (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "...[T]he issue at hand is that it is a WP:POVFORK considering the nominator made that point but did not use that specific term..."? Love of Corey (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, a simple misunderstanding then. I meant "nominator" as in the person who nominated this for deletion, . TompaDompa (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay then. My bad. Love of Corey (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced this is a POV-fork. This seems more like a typical summery style fork.  Sure, this article has disputes over WP:NPOV, and we have policies for that but that is not a reason for deletion.  At ~100kb of article size, a size which is likely to grow larger as the pandemic continues, it seems perfectly reasonable to split this out.  W 42  00:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - As the article's creator, I split it from the main COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden article in the first place because of all the news coverage I observed about the Swedish government response, which I believed was enough merit for its own article. This was supported by my observation that the original version of the main COVID-19 article, which includes the government response information and which the nominator wants to merge this article back into, was pretty lengthy to begin with and just as dedicated to covering the government response as it was to covering the COVID-19 pandemic in the country itself.


 * To put things in perspective, I found that the original version of the COVID-19 pandemic article (with all of the information on the government response in it) measured at 239 kB, which made it a nightmare of an article per WP:SIZERULE. One version of the article that didn't have the government response information was 149 kB, which is still a lot, but is nothing compared to the original size I just mentioned. This isn't the first conversation that has come up about the notability of this article, with other discussions occurring here and here, as well as in the article's talk page. And unfortunately, dissenting users there have already been selectively re-adding the information I split off back into the main article, without doing much of anything to trim it as the nominator said. The current version of the main article is now at 192 kB.


 * Speaking of which, the nominator claims this topic can be merged and trimmed for the sake of the main article. I strongly disagree. If you look at the government response article itself, you'll see there is so much reliable, well-developed, and well-sourced information to deal with that it seems impossible to figure out the specifics of such a trim. There are only two ways I can see a trim going down:


 * 1) The main COVID-19 pandemic article would take priority and entire sections on the government response would have to be deleted altogether for the sake of maintaining a manageable length for said pandemic article, thus leading to a loss of valuable information and content.


 * 2) The topic of the Swedish government response would take priority and the trim would have to be minimal so as to preserve as much notable content as possible, thus the resulting merge will leave us with an article that's still excessively long.


 * The fact that the nominator hasn't clarified what exactly this trim would entail from their perspective, and how it would be beneficial and balanced for both topics, tells me it is impossible for them to figure out as well.


 * Finally, the WP:COATRACK and WP:POV accusations. As you can see on this article's talk page, it all apparently comes down to how the lede was worded...and that's it. When the concerns over the lede's wording came to my attention, I explained why the lede was worded that way and twice expressed my openness for the lede being reworded to better suit the article's needs. That hasn't happened, not even once, if you look at the article's history. Love of Corey (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: The nomination is based on an assessment of the creator's motives: that it's a coatrack, and designed to push a certain POV. The nominator's claim is not supported by any explanation of the evidence, and they don't even explain what the objectionable POV is. I find Love of Corey's patient, reasonable explanation of their intentions to be convincing. The article is crawling with reliable sources, and the nominator did not present any analysis that would back up their claims. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to make things clear, the only thing original about this article is the lede. Everything else was copy-and-pasted from COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden with attribution. Aside from rescuing citations that would have been lost in the splitting process, I did nothing to alter the main body of the article itself. Love of Corey (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would leave the decision to authors of COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden, e.g. User:Blådjur. As I argued elsewhere, by splitting the article without previous discussion, Love of Corey violated Article size; in particular, they ignored that the quantity to be counted is "Readable prose size", and they still seem not to have figured out how readable prose size is calculated. (I have no interest in discussing motives or intentions of Love of Corey). Alternatively, outright delete/redirect/merge per TompaDompa. I note that the above "Keep - plenty of good sources [...]" ignores that the article was created as a Article size-violating split by Love of Corey, who above misleadingly describes themselves as "the article's creator"; their creation of article without tracing to the parent article was copyright violation (diff). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How else was I supposed to describe myself? "The article's splitter"? Besides, right after I created the article, I created a talk page for that article, which included a template that indicated the material was spun off from the main COVID-19 article. This was based on my initial misinterpretation of advice I got from about properly attributing spun-off material. They have since clarified their advice to me (in response to the creation of this very article, mind you), and I acknowledged my understanding and admitted my misinterpretation. I have since put that advice to good use here. Love of Corey (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It was premature and should have been agreed with the authors at COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. Deleting it here an going back to the mother article would prevent issues of fork etc. -Snowded TALK 11:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, this is a subtopic of COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden, and if it were merged back, the resulting article would be over the 100k bytes of readable prose recommended per WP:SIZE. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep How Sweden has been handeling the pandemic has gotten a huge amount of commentary, its too big to merge to the main article.★Trekker (talk) 00:54, 9 August 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.