| Revision as of 16:38, 20 January 2021 editScrupulousScribe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,153 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:47, 20 January 2021 edit undoXOR'easter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users32,730 edits →Huang Yanling: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| *'''Delete''' Fails ], for starters; more importantly, as argued above, this kind of speculation and tabloid-at-best reporting (the ''NZ Herald'' is just laundering the ''Mail on Sunday,'' which is ]) in a BLP is completely unsuitable. ] (]) 16:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Fails ], for starters; more importantly, as argued above, this kind of speculation and tabloid-at-best reporting (the ''NZ Herald'' is just laundering the ''Mail on Sunday,'' which is ]) in a BLP is completely unsuitable. ] (]) 16:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep and Improve''': The subject is a person of interest in the origins of Covid-19, as covered by a number of reliable sources. Besides for the NZ Herald, an also referenced articles from Deutsche Welle (in German and Chinese), The Jerusalem Post, United Press International, and Forbes, as well as an official counter statement by Xinhua News Agency, the official state-run press agency of the PRC. If there are concerns as to how the rumors on Weibo are presented, then more counter statements (such as ) can be added to bring the article on this notable person into NPOV. ] (]) 16:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC) | *'''Keep and Improve''': The subject is a person of interest in the origins of Covid-19, as covered by a number of reliable sources. Besides for the NZ Herald, an also referenced articles from Deutsche Welle (in German and Chinese), The Jerusalem Post, United Press International, and Forbes, as well as an official counter statement by Xinhua News Agency, the official state-run press agency of the PRC. If there are concerns as to how the rumors on Weibo are presented, then more counter statements (such as ) can be added to bring the article on this notable person into NPOV. ] (]) 16:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
| *:The ''Forbes'' item was a "]" piece, not a ] (and the author writes about "business and investing in emerging markets", so there's absolutely no ] factor to consider, even setting aside the high standards we have to maintain for ] ''and'' ]). ] is a blogging collective of unclear editorial standards which should not be used in a BLP either. NPOV isn't about saying one good thing for every bad thing; it's about fairly reflecting the available RS in accord with our standards, and here, our standards indicate that there's nothing to say. ] (]) 16:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:47, 20 January 2021
Huang Yanling
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Huang Yanling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable scientist who worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology is being used by conspiracy theorists to claim that the virus leaked in the laboratory. We should not be entertaining the use of Misplaced Pages for speculation and misinformation. RexxS (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RexxS (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. RexxS (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. RexxS (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Strong delete for lots of reasons, mostly as a possible BLP that is complete speculation. A WP:BLPREMOVE would leave nothing. - Astrophobe (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Strong delete: The subject of this article is a private individual who has made no attempt to seek publicity, and who is only known because of an evidence-free conspiracy theory that circulated on Chinese social media about a year ago. The article is just a summary of wild speculation about a private individual. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:PROF, for starters; more importantly, as argued above, this kind of speculation and tabloid-at-best reporting (the NZ Herald is just laundering the Mail on Sunday, which is deprecated for good reason) in a BLP is completely unsuitable. XOR'easter (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and Improve: The subject is a person of interest in the origins of Covid-19, as covered by a number of reliable sources. Besides for the NZ Herald, an earlier version of the article also referenced articles from Deutsche Welle (in German and Chinese), The Jerusalem Post, United Press International, and Forbes, as well as an official counter statement by Xinhua News Agency, the official state-run press agency of the PRC. If there are concerns as to how the rumors on Weibo are presented, then more counter statements (such as this) can be added to bring the article on this notable person into NPOV. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- The Forbes item was a "Contributor" piece, not a reliable source (and the author writes about "business and investing in emerging markets", so there's absolutely no subject-matter expert factor to consider, even setting aside the high standards we have to maintain for biographies of living people and medical matters). ScienceNet.cn is a blogging collective of unclear editorial standards which should not be used in a BLP either. NPOV isn't about saying one good thing for every bad thing; it's about fairly reflecting the available RS in accord with our standards, and here, our standards indicate that there's nothing to say. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)