Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 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 merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois. OK - I have to put a "merge to" link when I closed AfDs, so I just chose COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois. BUT I encourage you to discuss it appropriate on talk pages, merge things to whatever articles you deem fit. Missvain (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response to the COVID-19 pandemic

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per the results at Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic at the University of Notre Dame, I think this article is similarly unnecessary in the sense that it is way too specific of a topic to cover, given every institution out there is responding to and being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. If anything, select content should be merged to History of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and/or COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois. Love of Corey (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I Can't see anything in the article that didn't happen with the majority of educational institutions. Not notable for it's own article. Suonii180 (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Perfect example of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. KidAd  •  SPEAK  20:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The University of Illinois pioneered the saliva-based test that helped make testing more accessible and contributed greatly to the research around COVID-19 testing. This article is much more notable than the Notre Dame example. JustinMal1 (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that it? The saliva test? If so, all of the content available on that subject thus far can easily be merged into either article that I mentioned in my rationale. Love of Corey (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If the saliva test was notable then it should be mentioned at COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois or History of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign however as the majority of the university's response sounds similar to what other universities both in the United States and in many other countries have done, I don't think it warrants an entire article by itself. Suonii180 (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I thank those who have contributed thoughts to this "deletion discussion page." They have led me to realize that the Wikipedia article is weak in portraying what is unique about the UIUC's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The UIUC approach differs from almost every other university's response in three important ways. (1) A very efficient, fast and low-cost saliva test was developed at UIUC, and the university has used it to test students, faculty, staff and outside contractors, generally twice-weekly, resulting in over 1.9 million tests since the mid-August 2020 return of students for the fall semester. (2) Using this test in association with a UIUC-developed App the university has achieved fast feedback after testing, which allows the university to enforce rules designed to guarantee safe access to classrooms and other campus facilities. (3) Because of the strength of the UIUC approach, the University of Illinois T3 Shield program has been adopted by a large number of universities and other institutions within Illinois and around the country. Many of these three features are documented in the Wikipedia article through references. However, the above comments in this "Articles for deletion" page have made me realize that these three features are not sufficiently well described in the main body of the Wikipedia article. And, of equal or greater importance, these three ideas are currently barely touched upon in the lead section of the Wikipedia article. The article needs strengthening in order to emphasize these three points. (4) In addition, the article currently contains a lot of statements which are true for the responses of many other universities to the COVID-19 pandemic. These statements weaken the article, by making the main points of the article difficult to find. I plan to work on all four of these domains over the next couple of days, so that the deletion decision can be made with better knowledge of what is unique about the UIUC approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. CWBoast (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:ADVERT. Love of Corey (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ADVERT is the disamb. page for a bunch of policies and, frankly, a cop-out rebuttal. Please specify what specifically about Boast's comment meets the criteria for advertising — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinMal1 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep We recently were notified that a local school was adopting the Illinois Shield covid saliva test and found this article very helpful and timely in understanding what this is. Suggest keep this article while responses to Covid-19 are still playing out, then later after we've all hopefully moved on, do the merge and delete, but do save the info in the article, it's history. 2601:246:CD80:2DE0:5EB1:BC81:1E0C:17DF (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But this article is about the university's broader response and other events that occurred there, not just the saliva test. If the saliva test alone is basis for notability, then much of the article needs to be removed, and the article afterwards will look too short. It's best if the relevant content is merged to the aforementioned articles. Love of Corey (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The saliva test is inseparable from the rest of the university's response, removing the rest of the article would of course remove its notability. Without the saliva test technology, none of the rest of the COVID-19 response would look the way it does. In fact, had the test not been invented, your claims would be accurate, that this page would be no different than the Notre Dame example that had been deleted. One cannot overstate the importance of the saliva test technology in what makes this article notable in the first place. JustinMal1 (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The smartphone app and the models don't sound particularly unique for this university, though. Remove all of that and the standard material of the 2020-2021 academic year section, and you have a much shorter article that can just be merged back to the aforementioned main articles. Love of Corey (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that making models is what universities do. That part shouldn't be surprising. Love of Corey (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was about to vote delete but then I read the article. It contains at least WP:THREE sources specific to UIUC's response to the COVID-19 pandemic (as opposed to sources that also cover other universities' responses), published over a WP:SUSTAINED period of six months: NY Times, C&EN, Chicago Tribune. feminist (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What you just cited is an essay, though, not an official Wikipedia policy. Love of Corey (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it's an essay, but my argument is basically that this topic meets WP:GNG, and the essay presents a broadly accepted interpretation of GNG. feminist (+) 15:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete if this Saliva test was extremely unique, it should be integrated into COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois or something similar. Or perhaps the person/team who actually did the work/development should have an article as a pioneer and scientist. But this article reads like an advertisement for the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Nweil (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RUBBISH is not an argument for deletion; it is only an argument for improvement. And this article is not exclusively about the saliva test. feminist (+) 17:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't know whether a long comment like this is considered appropriate in this kind of discussion. I hope it is appropriate, and useful.
 * It seems that, for many of those arguing for deletion, the crux of their argument is a belief that the UIUC response to the COVID-19 pandemic is essentially the same response that many other universities took. If true, this argument would make a lot of sense: why would one want to see hundreds of Wikipedia articles which say essentially the same thing? I believe that some of the individual actions, and the combination of actions, in the UIUC response make its response very different than the responses of other universities.
 * As I see it, here are the most important individual features: (1) The UIUC developed a test which, arguably, has advantages over other available tests (as supported in the article being discussed). (2) The low cost and the scalability of the test makes it feasible for universities (and other entities) to administer this PCR test once, twice or more times per week to all students and employees, and to require a negative result for a person to gain access to university facilities. The number of tests administered at the UIUC since the August 15, 2020 return of students to campus is above 1.9 million, which, per se, means nothing -- but: (3) This allows the UIUC to continuously monitor the level of COVID-19 activity among students and employees and to tailor its testing, quarantine and isolation program accordingly.
 * None of these three features make the UIUC completely unique; other universities have adopted strategies similar to these. (1) Yale University's SalivaDirect test plays a role among non-traditional testing strategies (and, famously, was used by the NBA for restarting the professional basketball season). Rutgers also developed a saliva test and other universities have developed swab tests. However, (as is described in the Wikipedia article) none of these tests have the full set of advantages of the UIUC test. (2) A few other universities have tested on a regular basis. I have not found a source which documents how many universities test everyone at least once per week. (I have pieced together sources which suggest that maybe a half dozen test this frequently, and a couple of these may test students more frequently than once per week. If others would find it useful, I can describe how I came up with these rough estimates, but I'm probably already going into way more details than appropriate here.) (3) Many universities have tailored their strategies based on information gleaned during testing. However, in searches I have done, I have found no universities which have developed strategies comparable to those employed at the UIUC. In combination, these three (and other) features make the UIUC response unique, or one of a very small set of universities.
 * Some of the above comments raise questions about the UIUC modeling. While I have not found a source which documents the full role that modeling played in the overall UIUC strategy, modeling clearly did play a role in planning for summer-2020 student reentry preparations (as is described in the Wikipedia article) and modeling also played some role throughout the school year, in the university's ongoing management of COVID-19 on campus (also described in the Wikipedia article, but with less certainty). The idea that the university's modeling research should be dismissed because "making models is what universities do" is has no foundation; the modeling research was not included in the Wikipedia article to prove that the UIUC does research, but rather to explain the specific role that modeling played, real-time, in university decisions.
 * In summary, the invention of the saliva test does not, in and of itself, justify a Wikipedia article. But the saliva test enabled the UIUC to offer frequent and universal testing. It would be impossible to tell how the testing allowed for enforcement of the university's building use policy without describing the App. The App also provided ongoing information to the modeling effort. At multiple times the university quickly changed campus policy in response to information obtained from the testing itself, from the App and from modeling. The interplay between all the features of the UIUC strategy is what the Wikipedia article is about. To separate the features from each other would make it very difficult for a reader to see this interplay. CWBoast (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would love a few other thoughts from LESS INVOLVED parties.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: What do folks think of merging (if there is anything to merge) and/or redirecting to COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois? This would be as an alternative to deletion.
 * Redirect or merge some of its content into COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois, I honestly don't see a need for its own page given the similiar circumstances across every other school in the country. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  22:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Selective merge if keeping is not an option. Parts of this article are relevant to University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and parts are relevant to COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois. This is historical information and should be kept, even if the standalone article as a whole isn't deemed noteworthy. JustinMal1 (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant information into History of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. It feels like WP:SYN of various COVID-related items into one article, but it doesn't feel like a topic for an encyclopedia. I can see people worked very hard on the article, but I don't believe it deserves its own entry on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Apologies for such a long comment.
 * Much of this discussion is about how the materials in this article could be merged into various existing articles. And this would work well for the material in the section titled "Extended usage of the saliva test": some into COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois and some into COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. I plan to do that.
 * For the rest of the article the question is whether it should stand alone, or should be broken up and merged. In my May 7 comment (in particular, its final paragraph) I "argued that a key part of the article is its description of the interplay between the individual features of the UIUC strategy; to separate these features would obscure this part" (quoting the "Edit summary"). The first two sections of the article flesh out what is stated in that final May 7 paragraph; I believe that if one reads those two sections in the article, the interplay between the various components of the UIUC response is quite clear (although those two sections can probably be tightened and clarified).
 * Those who prefer to "Merge" these two key sections into various existing or future articles have put forward two arguments for this.
 * (1) Some take it as given that "every institution out there is responding to and being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic" or take as "given the similar circumstances across every other school in the country". These "givens" are obviously true. But I believe they are irrelevant to this discussion. If they were relevant then, by definition, no article should describe one university's approach. (That situation could have its advantages; no one would have to figure which articles on this topic should be included in Wikipedia and which shouldn't. But it is not a reasoned argument; it is simply stating something as "given".)
 * (2) Some don't "see anything in the article that didn't happen with the majority of educational institutions"; or they say that the UIUC "response sounds similar to what other universities both in the United States and in many other countries have done". This is a much more reasoned approach. But it needs support. What people "see" or what "sounds similar" does not further the effort to reach consensus. One way to support assertions about what one "sees" or about how something "sounds" would be to identify one or more universities which have done things similar to what has been done at the UIUC. In my May 7 comment, I attempted to explore this kind of thinking. (See the paragraph which starts "None of these three features make the UIUC completely unique....".) I find no attempt in any comment starting with the word "Delete", the word "Redirect" or the word "Merge" to identify a university whose approach is similar to that at the UIUC. This means (I believe) that there is no support anywhere in this discussion for the statements quoted at the beginning of this paragraph.
 * I think it is time to make a decision. With the removal of the "Extended use of the saliva test" section, I believe that it is appropriate to keep this as a Wikipedia article. CWBoast (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect or Merge: This might not be the case but the opening part appears as if this is a publicity message for parents to feel their students are safe because of what this article portrays to be a thorough-looking strategic plan to handle COVID properly. We can't have an article for every single institution (of this size)'s response to COVID. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:17, 27 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.