| Revision as of 16:09, 20 January 2021 editThucydides411 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,778 editsNo edit summaryTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:11, 20 January 2021 edit undoXOR'easter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users32,730 edits →Huang Yanling: dNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Delete''' per nom. -] ] 16:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nom. -] ] 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. -] (]) 16:09, 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. -] (]) 16:09, 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) | |||
Revision as of 16:11, 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)