Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia's response to the 2019–20 coronavirus 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. Notability established. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think this article could be summaried into other COVID-19 article, same as Articles for deletion/Teleconferencing in the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic Hddty (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hddty (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't think merging is suitable. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: where to move the page? --ReyHahn (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete And the navel gazing award of the year goes to...Wikipedia! CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 10:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that I am the minority, and am thus striking my vote, as it is clear the community wishes to keep this page. I still see it as an exercise in navel-gazing, but then again we've created some 5,000 pages on corona, so whats one more? I think that we're definitely over-covering corona, showing our WP:RECENTISM bias. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not many events have had nearly everyone in the world impacted significantly, this is one that does. Juxlos (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep there are certainly enough sources. Merging it to a higher level article, alongside some other similar articles (eg teleconferencing) would result in an article that's way too long. Juxlos (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep (preferred) or merge to section of a COVID-19 article (which one?) and also add an excerpt at Wikipedia. I think that it would be better to determine an adequate outcome by adding a summary to a broader article and seek consensus on the talk pages. AfD is not really the best venue to discuss that process, and this nomination looks a bit premature. --MarioGom (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The sources are abundant and reliable and its scope well-defined, no matter how masturbatory it sounds. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  11:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete—is any of this coverage especially noteworthy? As in, is Wikipedia's response to coronavirus any different from our coverage of other disasters, epidemics, shootings, etc which have received press? I don't believe it is. Publications talking about editing current events is at this point basically WP:ROUTINE coverage, and could be summarized in a line or two in the Wikipedia article as an example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 13:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Several reliable sources cited in the article are far from WP:ROUTINE and provide non-trivial analysis and reporting. --MarioGom (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't find Slate or Haaretz writing a full-length article about Wikipedia's response to Eurovision Song Contest 2019, but they have for this one. This coverage is covered, and therefore it's noteworthy. Juxlos (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep (disclaimer: article creator) per sufficient secondary coverage in reputable sources. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - easily meets GNG (also, no target for a merge is proposed; and the video conferencing article was merged to Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology - come back when this can be merged into 'Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on encyclopedias'). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - It's difficult to know right now if this is a one-time event (it would be nice if it was, indicating the crisis is short), but it doesn't seem to be over and Wikipedia so far played an important enough role to make the news; some of the articles are also more than only mentions. — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject of this article is the subject of media coverage in multiple major media outlets globally which present various perspectives. This passes WP:GNG.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 'keep' I feel it would be inappropriate to summarize in main article. J cool bro   (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. It passes the GNG. I imagine this would be upmerged eventually, but it seems reasonable as a stand-alone article for the time being. Guettarda (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequately sourced to establish notability, and long enough that merging would be awkward (though not impossible, if the right target were identified). We can write about Wikipedia on Wikipedia if the sources exist to build that writing upon, and here, they do. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG, and no suitable merge target seems to exist, at least until something like Wikimedia response to disasters comes around. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments. As for navel gazing, this isn't it. Wikipedia's coverage of the pandemic has taken on notable status, per sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology, if Wikipedia is considered a technology. buidhe 01:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Plenty of coverage in third-party sources, establishing adequate notability. -- benlisquare T•C•E 01:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a very unprecedented in the world and Wikipedia is one of the very few place that can always give up-to-date and 100% neutral information regarding this COVID-19 issues. Chongkian (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - The authentic and authoritative coverage by Wikipedia is acknowledge by the sources, which makes this a notable topic. No need to merge into anything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Title could change a little, I think "Wikimedia and the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" would be an improvement (the article goes beyond WP), but WP:GNG is not a problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as the article is well-sourced from media coverage and far from original research or unreliable referencing, I support keeping it. ---Avicenno (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Very week keep - Move to WikiProject COVID-19/Wikipedia's response is preferred solution over deletion... does have some interest for the project.-- Moxy 🍁 01:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons above. There's no consensus about the deletion of this article. Movies Time (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Considering that there are a number of reliable sources that prove towards the significance over Wikipedia's responses to coronavirus, it is worth keeping the article as a separate mainspace article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 00:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I feel this article is valid to be retained here. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Week keep . It needs to be edited so it is more like an article, not a project page. It could also be moved to a page in the Wikipedia namespace. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 22:16, 29 April 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.