Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Studies

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  no consensus. While it seems rather unlikely that this draft will ever be accepted, there isn't consensus that the draft is so wildly inappropriate that it must be deleted immediately. Assuming the author doesn't continue trying to work on the article and resubmit it, it will be automatically deleted in due time.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 17:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Studies

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Extremely poor-sourced nonsense pushed by WP:FRINGE POV editor now banned from vaccine hesitancy for edit warring for inclusion of this material there. It is, as a result, a WP:POVFORK based on sources which easily fail WP:MEDRS requirements. See also: WT:MED discussion, Their Talk page block notices, clear disinterest in ever following MEDRS. This content does not belong on Wikipedia, and the project (which itself has limited server resources) is not required to be a web host for such blatant POV content, even in draft space. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC) *Decline as failing to meet medically reliable sources. Oh. Already declined.
 * Strong Delete. This is nothing more than a promotion of pseudoscience. Also, having in mind that the creator is persistent about this, their behavior may warrant some kind of wider block. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 22:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep : Not pseudoscience. Not everything that opens a door to pseudoscience is pseudoscience. Submitted, it was appropriately declined with comments that should be read. It has a single source from an OK scientific journal, which is something, but not enough.  Single journal articles are regarded as primary sources for establishing a topic, and secondary sources are required.  If the author has behavioural issues, behavioural issues should be dealt with by escalating warnings, not by deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Vaccine hesitancy. Discuss at Talk:Vaccine hesitancy.  Spin-offs should be discussed on talk pages, not done unilaterally in draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Needed declining. Was declined.  Doesn't need deleting.  Draft space reviewers may need to learn about draft space.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete based on behavioural issues. I want to remind everyone that this is a draft... if the author is not here to build an encyclopedia then who is going to pick up on this? I have seen no evidence that the author has taken the advice of other editors, and they remain partly blocked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a draft, if it gets improved it will become an article, if no one picks it up, it will be deleted in due time. In the mean time, comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated is a valid subject, how would we know that vaccines are good (or bad, or somes good and some bad) if no ne compared? - Nabla (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Testing is part of how vaccines are made. They don't just throw a bunch of antibodies in a vial and hope.  -  Sumanuil  .  (talk to me) 03:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Let WP:G13 do the work. Someone may even pick this draft up if they are interested. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC) \
 * Delete as WP:POVFORK.  -  Sumanuil  .  (talk to me) 02:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What page is it a POVFORK? Or is that a VAGUEWAVE? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Vaccine hesitancy, obviously.  -  Sumanuil  .  (talk to me) 03:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, yes, it’s a fork (not convinced POVFORK) of Vaccine hesitancy. Redirect to that, and do not allow forking to draftspace unless done by consensus evident at Talk:Vaccine hesitancy.  I think there is room for more coverage of negatives of vaccinations, but as it’s already in mainspace, it should be added direct to mainspace under watching eyes, not unwatched in draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2022 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.