Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaccine critic


 * 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   redirect to Vaccine controversy. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  14:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Vaccine critic

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Neologism, not in wide use (only a mere 5300 ghits, when put in quotes, 7 book results, no news results, 10 google scholar - and these are trivial mentions in every case I looked at. These are paltry numbers for a neologism article). The article further has little to no actual content, not covered by, say, anti-vaccination or similar. The article itself admits that it's poorly-defined. Further, while claiming to be a separate term from anti-vaccinationist, many of the people who are supposedly separate from the anti-vaccination movement are, in fact, the leading lights of the anti-vaccination movement, which makes the distinction extremely dubious. Probably Original research.

Long story short, there is no evidence this term has any notability as a distinct term, nor that it has ever been consistently used (and it's not been used very much!) to make the distinction the article wishes to draw. I'll buy that someone, somewhere, might have tried to make the distinction - but it hasn't caught on, and I can find no evidence that anyone accepts this definiton.

Nonce words are words that are created for a very specific purpose, that are unlikely to come up again. For instance, one muight create the unlikely term dechickenization in your story about a mad scientist who stuck the hero's brain in a chicken. It wouldn't appear in a dictionary, but the meaning is clear. I suspect that the few uses of this we do see are mere nonce phrases - de novo combinations of "vaccine" and "critic" in order to quickly describe someone in simple terms for newsprint and such. 86.** IP (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to vaccine controversy; anything notable can be covered there. It's not clear what the encyclopedia would gain with a standalone article, particularly given the dearth of specific, non-trivial sources. MastCell Talk 21:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to vaccine controversy per User:MastCell. Mangoe (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur with MastCell Shot info (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect. I created List of people associated with vaccination to hold some of this stuff, but am not strongly attached to it. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to vaccine controversy...the above arguments cover it. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect: Clearly non-notable neologism. Clearly violates WP:CFORK, as content is already covered in Vaccine controversy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be merged with the article on vaccines? I agree that this does not really merit its own article, but I think that it can be merged quite safely. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources for its content, so, no, not really. 86.** IP (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems that if one types "vaccine critic" into the box on the left, one now gets redirected to vaccine controversy anyway. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why that would be: It's not been redirected. You sure? 86.** IP (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I tried typing "vaccine critic" into the box on the left just now, and still got redirected to "vaccine controversy", so it seems as if it has been redirected. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, now, but that hadn't happened at the time. 86.** IP (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2011 (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.