Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
WP:NOTWEBHOST clearly states in the first paragraph "Wikipedia pages, including those in user space".
Line 114: Line 114:
* '''Keep''' a valid use of user-space, and a useful historical reference. As far as the block goes: "indefinite is not infinite". [[User:Walt Yoder|Walt Yoder]] ([[User talk:Walt Yoder|talk]]) 01:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' a valid use of user-space, and a useful historical reference. As far as the block goes: "indefinite is not infinite". [[User:Walt Yoder|Walt Yoder]] ([[User talk:Walt Yoder|talk]]) 01:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as it conforms to [[WP:UP]]. Wide latitude is given to essays in user space. Most of the deletion arguments put forward here only apply to other namespaces. [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 01:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as it conforms to [[WP:UP]]. Wide latitude is given to essays in user space. Most of the deletion arguments put forward here only apply to other namespaces. [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 01:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
**Not true. The main argument is [[WP:NOTWEBHOST]], which clearly states in the first paragraph "Wikipedia pages, '''including those in user space'''". (Bold in original.) --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 06:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:17, 11 July 2023

User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely

MfDs for this article:
User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

This article seems to be a WP:CONTENTFORK of COVID-19 lab leak theory. I'm not sure if essays are considered an exception to the rule because they're not in mainspace, but I'll let others decide. WP:ESSAYFORK may also be relevant. An article talk page is the appropriate place to voice disagreements with article content. This type of essay seems to violate WP:NOTADVOCACY. It's ok to use User space to draft an RfC, but essays are permanent fixtures, and are really meant to be focused on policy and guidelines. The void century 18:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • CambridgeBayWeather, you closed the prior discussion about this on 19 May 2021 as keep. Using WP:CCC language, do you regard that as a "recently established consensus"? If not, should all prior participants be notified? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been two years since then and Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change is policy. If you do notify all previous editors you need to be careful of Wikipedia:Canvassing. It also suggests ways to notify them. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the policy I referred to. I ping these prior participants:Guy Macon PaleoNeonate JoelleJay SmokeyJoe JzG Vaticidalprophet Ched JPxG Beyond My Ken Rhododendrites Forich ජපස LuckyLouie Bonewah EuanHolewicz432 Weburbia MjolnirPants XOR'easter 力 Elli 31.41.45.190 GKFX Hyperion35 Mlb96 FeydHuxtable User:ThatIPEditor Novem Linguae Nyttend backup Alexbrn. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bon courage: as I'm fairly sure your ping to Alexbrn would have failed due to the username change. Your ping of the IP would also have failed but as a blocked webhost it's not worth anything more. AFAICT, there's no other ping that would have failed other than any who chose to turn pings off. Nil Einne (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and speedy close - This is a userpage essay that does not violate WP:UP. See "what may I have in my user page": "Non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor, essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters". Quoted policies above do not apply. And as stated in the previous MfD, WP:IDONTLIKEIT also does not apply. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - On the WP:UP there is a section prohibiting "User pages that look like articles" (WP:FAKEARTICLE). This is content that would not pass Wikipedia's normal standard for medical sourcing. Should Wikipedia host stuff like National Institutes of Health, which funded research that may have caused the pandemic., cited to a self-published blog, in user space where editors are not meant to challenge it?
    Rjjiii (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - seems to be in line with WP:UP. JustinReilly (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - really now, as we say in the compiler business this leads to undefined behavior. undefined behavior is anything including and beyond allowing the compiler to do anything it chooses, even "to make demons fly out of your nose." Theheezy (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a content fork masquerading as an essay, It is worded as an article, Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fun fact: this page gets no real pageviews except when someone nominates it for deletion. My opinion hasn't changed since the last time, so meh per what I wrote there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please link to the appropriate Wikipedia policy, WP:MEH. :-) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not an essay, just a years-old tirade masquerading as such. not an appropriate use of userspace. ValarianB (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep per "oh my god, I got pinged to this two years later? didn't we stop arguing about this at some point?". More realistically: keep per WP:UPYES and WP:USERESSAY, which are very lenient on the content of user essays and intentionally permit substantial variance in coherence and content of "things that are broadly statements on Wikipedia". As JPxG said the first time around: "Is there an addendum to WP:IDONTLIKEIT I haven't seen that says "this suddenly becomes a great argument if it's a politics thing you disagree with"?" Vaticidalprophet 14:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons this was kept last time. Arguing that a user essay is a content fork of an article? Really? Elli (talk | contribs) 14:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . . . unless We also have WP:NOLABLEAK. I request that both sides of this be given equal treatment. Keep both or delete both. [I am the author of the essay under consideration here.] Honestly it's a little strange that that essay is allowed to have a mainspace shortcut, while mine is not. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually partly rethinking that. The two sides should have equal treatment, but I think keeping both is best. As others have said, essays don't have to follow most policy. Furthermore, I do actually like WP:NOLABLEAK, because at the time it was written, it did a good job of demonstrating what it was trying to demonstrate. And I do still think that it's curious that users are arguing that my essay is being argued as a content fork, while the other one is not. At what point does WP:OTHERSTUFF just become an excuse for double standards? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The "double standards" and NOLABLEAK being mainspace come from the fact that that essay is correct, while yours is not. Happy to help. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to delete a userspace essay. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe I've said anything about deleting it or not (or voted in this MfD for that matter). For someone who strives hard to keep terrible content that does nothing for WP's mission as an encyclopedia as opposed to a soapbox centered around fringe theories, you sure are bad at actually reading. Best regards. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am being quite civil. It is quite relevant that, in your case, the (Personal attack removed) be pointed out. After all, this concerns the removal (or not) of a piece of writing - of a far longer and complex nature than my comment here. If one is unable to comprehend said writing, how are they expected to decide on its value for WP's purposes or the guidelines it does or does not violate? I'll leave that one with you. Best regards. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No you are not being remotely civil. You accused me of striving hard to keep terrible content, when I am merely commenting in a MfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The piece of writing that is the subject of this inquiry is terrible in my personal opinion, which I am entitled to. The fact you are striving hard in this case is driven by the objective observation that you have a. requested a speedy close, unlike any other user here, b. responded to three separate vote threads to argue your case, and c. reaching very hard in terms of arguments to support your viewpoint. Therefore, "striving hard" is my objective observation, not one meant to deride any person, but to describe their actions as they are. Best regards. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You would be in an immensely stronger position with that statement if crucial raw data supporting the scientific papers arguing against LL were available. Just as a for-example, we have this sentence:[1] WIV staff members have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 and were reported negative (Cohen, 2020). So can we see the raw data supporting that sentence? No, we cannot. Click through to the Cohen reference there, and you will see what that sentence is based on. Now, the fact that this paper has been accepted into a prestigious journal, and the raw data are unavailable, is not relevant in Wikipedia mainspace. It is, however, relevant to truth. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it fairly remarkable to see such anti-scientific sneering out in the open here on Wikipedia. I would say this is prima facie evidence that this account should be banned. Does anyone else find this to be entirely disconfirming? It is an achingly familiar line I have seen before from the likes of Flat Earthers, creationists, race realists, etc., etc., etc. What good is keeping this account around doing for WP:ENC? jps (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The availability of raw data is a core principle of science. It is not, however, a core principle of Wikipedia. That's one thing the essay is getting at. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. This is just WP:PROFRINGE posturing. No different from what we've seen before. Remember climategate? Same rhetorical bluster. Same lack of "there" there. jps (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not engage with me on the level of how we can know that the sentence is true? The paper says that WIV staff members were tested and found negative. If that is the case, and it is a fact we can rely on, then surely there is evidentiary support for the sentence, and such evidentiary support can be supplied. And an ad hominem attack someone who points out the failure to supply evidence makes matters worse. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not what Wikipedia is for. There are plenty of other places on the internet where you can engage with what is or is not true. This looks to me like you are WP:NOTHERE which is, ironically, what I argued the last time this was up for deletion. jps (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Others have argued WP:TRUTHMATTERS. The comment I was responding to was saying that the other essay was correct and mine is not. I did not bring up truth on this page until that happened. But surely, once others have brought up truth-related points, it is appropriate for me to do the same. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When something is true and something else is false, there really is no argument that can suffice for the willfully ignorant. Your essay is willfully, dare-I-say, obscenely anti-empirical, anti-scientific, and basically a WP:POLEMIC. There is nothing to argue here. That's just what it is. If you don't see why that is, you ought to go elsewhere. Thus WP:NOTHERE. jps (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TRUTHMATTERS. Lies and misapprehensions should not be masquerading as Wikipedia essays-cum-articles anywhere on this site. It looks to me that it is also a WP:POINT violation. jps (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest that it's actually this MfD nom which violates WP:POINT. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool story, bro. I think it's painfully obvious that when someone writes a WP:FAKEARTICLE like this in response to an essay which has a certain broader community consensus, it is obviously not being done in the spirit of collaboration and good will. Meantime, this MfD has allowed for discussion of what seems to be at least a controversial point, so I don't see how you could think that the filer is trying to disrupt just to make a point. jps (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The prior close was fine and there was absolutely no need to waste people's time with this matter of ultimately no consequence. Miner Editor (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its a WP:SOAPBOX argument promoting a WP:POVFORK for one specific article. That's not an essay. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. Two years ago you might, if you looked sideways, possibly conclude that a lab leak was at least plausible, but that was then and this is now: the lab leak claim, at this point, is used primarily as a Sinophobic propaganda tool, and as an excuse to attack living individuals such as Fauci. We can discuss the theory neutrally in main space, but it has no business being uncritically repeated anywhere on Wikipedia. It's the COVID equivalent of climate change denial at this point. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you feel about the articles published over the past several months by the Times about the lab leak theory? But that doesn't matter, since WP:NOT thankfully does not apply to userspace essays. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true. The intro to WP:SOAPBOX says this applies to [...] user pages and content hosted on Wikipedia is not for ... When policy says Personal essays on Wikipedia-related topics are welcome, it's referring to WP namespace-related viewpoints. It's not saying that essays are a place to express any opinion. The void century 16:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SOAPBOX also specifically says "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project." This essay is a statement of opinion, referring to positions of other covid article editors, and it is non-disruptive. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your reading issues cropping up here again - internal policies and guidelines clearly refers to the discussion of policies (and guidelines) in the abstract, not their specific application in any article's case, which is a topic for talk pages of said articles. This essay (as one could so generously refer to it) is not a statement of support or opposition to any one policy or guideline that WP presents in the abstract, rather it is a clear polemic with the way a specific article is written (and also a polemic with reality, if you will). What you quote yourself serves to undermine your point. Best regards. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is lab leak (a known phenomenon with other diseases worldwide) Sinophobic but "exotic animals at wet markets" (a more culturally-specific phenomenon) not? I personally think it's the latter but I don't think either can fairly be called Sinophobic. Crossroads -talk- 18:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    known phenomenon is a stretch. AFAIK, no major pandemics are thought to have originated in a lab leak. The void century 23:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. "No epidemic has been caused by the escape of a novel virus".[1] There is a long history of conspiracy theorists blaming serious diseases on lab leaks though, including SARS, Ebola, HIV, and H1N1.[2] –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8373617/
  2. ^ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-origin-of-sars-cov-2-revisited/
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a web host for personal rambles about encyclopedia topics. Agree with the other delete !votes made so far. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems perfectly harmless and alternate viewpoints should not be specifically targeted for censorship. David A (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a userspace page, it's not really important enough to bold vote on. It certainly seems a lot less of an issue than Wikipedia:Topics where reliable sources should be banned from Wikipedia indefinitely. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK and WP:NOTAWEBHOST. This has very little to do with Wikipedia itself and is much more about advocacy. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, If not agreeing with the content of an essay is grounds to delete it we're not going to have many essays left. Its clearly an essay not a content fork. If the complaint is about the format I'm sure the author would be happy to give it a less article like appearance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Essays with opinions are fine even if we disagree with those opnions, but the opinions should be at least marginally related to Wikipedia (and I don't mean "an opinion about something that Wikipedia has an article about"). Otherwise they should be removed per WP:NOTAWEBHOST. This essay should be treated exactly as we would treat an essay advocating for or against chemtrails, antivax, bigfoot, or even brushing your teeth. Except of course any essay about [ https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ]. That one is the TRUTH. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I got a ping from this page on another Wikimedia site, and literally thought it was an issue with single-user login giving me old pings from years ago. However, inconceivably, this really is a deletion discussion for this userspace essay about COVID... a second one... two years later in July 2023. There appear to have been no changes whatsoever in the merits of the case in these two years. I would cite my own arguments here from the last nomination, but I see that someone else has already done so. Very well. So then, keep per Vaticidalprophet per JPxG. While I am here, I think it ought to be said again that Wikipedia is not Facebook. I understand that a lot of people here enjoy talking about their political beliefs, and even enjoy arguing about them, but it is really not what the project is for. jp×g 06:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Parenthetically, regarding WP:NOTWEBHOST: this seems like a bunch of hooey to me. It is hard for me to agree with the claim that we just can't (or don't) have essays about politics stuff: we clearly do, and it's all over the place. The fact that this standard isn't being applied to other stuff indicates that this isn't the actual standard. It is substantially harder for me to stomach the idea that the policy applies specifically and exclusively to this essay, and somehow not to the litany of political projectspace and userspace essays, among them User:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak. jp×g 06:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In May 2022, I rewrote User:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak to just be quotations from academic review articles, with zero commentary except for maybe the first sentence. I decided that format is more neutral, encyclopedic, and lowers the temperature of my essay and essays in this topic area. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae No problem with that . . . it's your essay, and you can do as you please! But did you have any troubles similar to what I am having now when it was in the old format? Adoring nanny (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't. I imagine that's because my essay argues for the mainstream scientific viewpoint. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I still remember some whining on its talk page by an IP address that obviously wasn't there for the encyclopedia... —PaleoNeonate – 00:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's good for it to be improved, but even if it sucked, I would want to keep it around: the project benefits from a variety of perspectives, and if we are not smart enough to distinguish smart ones from dumb ones, we are hosed no matter how ardently we delete bad opinions. jp×g 21:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This userpage essay was the author's opinion on the date it was published, based on information which was available before that date. Users were certainly entitled to take such positions based on information available before 2021. This identical essay was previously kept in another MfD over two years ago. As it happens the world (and Wikipedia) have moved on since then. The essay does not purport to be an article and per WP:USERESSAY wikipedians are permitted to have taken incorrect and/or minority positions in their own userspace (especially in retrospect). From a "history of Wikipedia" perspective, I believe historical user essays which help future readers understand something about important Wikipedia disagreements like this episode are illuminating (and in some ways essential) in a sausage-factory way. "Correctness" doesn't weigh into it. The search for accuracy does matter, however, and this essay reflects a good-faith effort by the user to express their view at that moment in history, over two years ago. If this essay was instead intended to describe the structural integrity of a bridge, and that bridge later failed, I hope we wouldn't be excoriating the author (and deleting their essay) because their analysis didn't prove out at a later date. BusterD (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was not outradeous two years ago, and now that the lab leak hypothesis has gained traction it is even less harmful.Forich (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fringe content which violates WP:UP#GOALS. Hatman31 (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probably one of the few times OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should apply. Also can't help but notice how this nomination appears to have come from a content dispute which makes me wary. But, for the bean counters, per previous MFD, JPxG. Arkon (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It didn't come from a content dispute, but it is a related issue. I was faced with whether to engage in BRD in a science-related article (Covid-19 lab leak theory) with Adoring nanny, an editor who wrote a whole essay expressing disdain for science, saying things like logic and reason are not Wikipedia policy. I initially chose an alternate WP:BRB route and attempted to improve my edit instead of leave it reverted. Eventually I self-reverted and discussed. In my view, if an editor openly disdains science, other editors can and should consider that information. This is part of the reason I don't think this type of essay should exist. Seeing this essay immediately changed my view of this editor, and that hurts the process for both of us. The void century 05:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am pro-science. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're so pro science that yours doesn't need peer review! The void century 12:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing in that essay that is "anti-science". Being critical or skeptical of the actions of individual scientists is not being "anti-science"; actual scientists do this routinely. And "logic and reason are not Wikipedia policy" is not that different from the longstanding Wikipedia motto of, "Verifiability, not truth" (WP:NOTTRUTH). Miner Editor (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will confess to one anti-scientific error I made on this very page. My initial reaction was "keep both or delete both." A critical part of science is a spirit of free and open debate. The "or delete both" portion was therefore antiscientific. That's one reason I struck that portion. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the context of science, free and open debate means professional critique and dialogue related to methodology, replicability, interpretation of data, and evidence-based alternatives. Peer review, which you seemingly don't believe is important, is actually an important aspect of free and open debate. Free and open debate doesn't mean casting aspersions like virologists don't want to be seen as being at fault, drawing logically flawed conclusions like China is hiding information, therefore China has something to hide, arguing that Medium articles and preprints are comparable to peer-reviewed research, and making patently false science observations like If Covid were a Zoonosis, it would have initially been better-adapted to an animal, not to humans. Your essay isn't free and open debate, it's a land mine of logical fallacies and misinformation disguised by scientific language. The void century 16:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But I am being evidence based in this very discussion. Look at the part above about the sentence that says WIV staff members have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 and were reported negative (Cohen, 2020). I invite you to click through to the actual paper and to see for yourself what evidence the authors of that paper are using to support that sentence of the paper. Having done that, it should be obvious whether or not that particular sentence can be trusted. This is an evaluation that anyone can do. If you care to do so, it will tell you something about who has truth on their side in this discussion and who doesn't. Notice also that when I brought that up, the other editor responded with a bunch of attacks on me and did not go into whether or not the sentence in the paper is sufficiently supported by the evidence the paper gives for it. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, same as last time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is more dangerous to be perceivable as censoring anything. The essay is old and weak. It stands as a POV declaration by the user, who remains involved in the topic in mainspace, namely the article COVID-19 lab leak theory, which is far better written than the essay. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia shouldn't be, and can't be, an online platform for spreading and promoting conspiracy theories. There are more than enough of such platforms already, unfortunately. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 15:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy Keep. All this bluster over six kilobytes! Think of this essay's existence as an inexpensive way for wiki to signal its commitment to open inquiry and the communities' restraint from “scientific propaganda” [2] and “lamentable lack of openness and transparency among Western scientists who appear to have been more interested in shutting down a hypothesis they thought was very plausible, for political reasons” [3] (both cited on the lab leak article). The conclusion of this essay is hardly about the lab leak, it's worth noting. Essays don't need to be right, this doesn't look like an article in disguise, well within wiki standards. SmolBrane (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep quite obviously conforms to WP:UP. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quoting Guy Macon, the essay is more than marginally related to Wikipedia, because it is one editor's critique of Wikipedia's reliability, relating to its policies, written around a particular "case study". The author said that the essay is a commentary on WP:PAG, and that's what it reads like. The commentary... hasn't aged well. It takes a higher caliber of critical review of Wikipedia to even make a dent. We can see how trying to contrast notions such as reality, logic, and reason against established practices used to reach reasonable encyclopedic coverage can backfire; somehow, Wikipedia turns out to be very rational without even trying! We can see from this example how the existing policies serve us well, and help us maintain a reliable encyclopedia.—Alalch E. 17:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you name any opinion on any topic that Wikipedia covers that is not allowed per the above reasoning? If a flat earther posts a pro-flat-earth essay that is "one editor's critique of Wikipedia's reliability" written around the particular "case study" of Wikipedia claiming that the earth isn't flat, then by your logic that essay would be related to Wikipedia and should be kept. The same holds true of essays on most of the topics I list at WP:YWAB. Guy Macon (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference would appear to be that of a minority opinion vs a conspiracy theory. Unless I'm missing something AN doesn't appear to have endorsed either of the lab leak conspiracy theories (production in either China or the US as a bioweapon) but contained themselves to expressing a minority opinion held by *some* subject matter experts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This user page appears to align with typical user-related content guidelines. Moreover, it does contain sources, albeit to some extent. It's important to note that the concept of content fork does not apply in this context, as it pertains specifically to article space. Upon reviewing the opposition votes, it seems evident that some individuals aim to disseminate their own version of the truth, relying on personal essays and subjective interpretations of policies to support their claims. It is unlikely that anyone would mistake this for an article since such a notion is not feasible. Given these considerations, there appears to be no valid reason for deletion. PackMecEng (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignore Neither There was no lab leak nor Lab Leak Likely are very useful for generating quality article content. They are both symptoms of a poor editing dynamic, the big problem with the first is that it had to be created at all, and the content (though not the title) simply boils down to stating the damn obvious. There's been no lack of crap news sources to deal with on COVID-19 lab leak theory and also plenty of WP:PROFRINGE editors, which will likely continue in the future. A huge time sink resulting in poor article quality. Ignore the essay, i think ජපස has the correct focus here for fixing the underlying problems. fiveby(zero) 16:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an interesting case, in terms of competing policy considerations. I'm normally inclined to give wide berth to userspace essays. And I'm fine with keeping essays with which I disagree, as well as with using userspace to hold material that might later be useful to provide balance in mainspace. And I'm certainly friendly to the idea put forth in the comment directly above mine, that one can just ignore the thing. On the other hand, however, this essay fails WP:NOTWEBHOST, and that becomes the deciding factor for me. It argues that Wikipedia is captive to "powerful interests", which is akin to what ArbCom determined to be an aspersion in the GMO case (editors who didn't accept the fringe theory that GMO foods were toxic were called shills for agrotech companies – here, editors who don't want to give undue weight to the lab leak fringe theory are being, in effect, called shills for powerful interests). Based upon present-day sourcing, it is unlikely that the content of the essay will become useful in mainspace. Instead, it just sits as a repository for a fringe theory, and that goes against what Wikipedia is or is not. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the editor has now been indeffed as a boomerang from an AE report, and the rationale for the indef specifically points to POV-pushing over a wide range of fringey topic areas, I believe that the rationale for deleting based on the WP:NOTWEBHOST policy has become all the more stronger. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • I question your neutrality in this vote. Do not attempt to play the sympathy card here. Your country is not the only country which exists and was affected by COVID. Theheezy (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In addition, COVID-19 allowed for centralization of power within the US government, which gives all the more reason to keep this essay as it shows the true underlying motives for such an action. Theheezy (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      ??? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It is abundantly clear by my recent edit patterns that I reside in Singapore, a country known for its neutrality and diplomacy. I intend to espouse and embody this neutrality and diplomacy in this debate. I can even disclose that I have worked in the technology industry and am a former American citizen.
      I assume the Ukranian flag on your profile identifies you as a Ukranian citizen or someone with interest in Ukranian sovereignty, if I am incorrect in this, please let me know.
      Given the above, I question your neutrality in this vote when the essay is pointing some portion of blame at the US Government which is currently providing financial assistance and aid to your nation's war effort.
      Although we can not yet be certain, it is possible that the release of a bioweapon of this magnitude is the largest death toll attributed to Weapons of mass destruction since the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is precedent of the United States doing such behavior in plausibly deniable ways, for example Stuxnet which are difficult to track and trace.
      This is not in regards to any content on Wikipedia mainspace, this is an Essay and thus does not have to meet the highest standards of quality. Theheezy (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I am a US citizen, was born here, and live here, and I have no Ukrainian ancestry, not that any of that is relevant. I have that on my user page because I support the Ukrainians. This has nothing to do with the MfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I apologies for my mistake then. Theheezy (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I have some issues with the essay, and it’s true that it was written two years before it became obvious that lab leak was supported by more than just tinfoil-hat-wearers, but while it may still be too fringe an opinion (among Wikipedians) for the project namespace, it’s certainly not too fringe for the userspace. — Will • B [talk] 20:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It is a soapbox. It has its desired conclusion and collects half-baked evidence and ignores all the evidence pointing at nature. And they are not simply saying that people need to be cautious. They are outright insisting that lab leak is likely and then rips on Wikipedia for not agreeing. After reading their essay, there's nothing in it that qualifies as real evidence to prove anything to make changes to Wikipedia article and say "lab leak is more likely". Distrust of others or conspiracies, doesn't validate a theory.[4] And I see their essay writes Wikipedia policy leads us to publish the wrong answer. It is what it is. and However, if you are editing Wikipedia, you have to be aware of the difference between reality and Wikipedia policy. As of today (May 6, 2021), they lead to opposite conclusions. It's dangerously asking people to embrace conspiracies, ignore due process of needing conclusive evidence and to join in on wailing on Wikipedia policies and towards other editors for not agreeing with them. This alone should warrant an easy delete as Wikipedia shouldn't be a platform for encouraging loosely backed conspiracies and rejecting mainstream scientific viewpoint.GUPTAkanthan (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Will-B and many others above (responding to ping) — Ched (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTWEBHOST and Guy's argument above. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NOTWEBHOST applies; also, the "essay" in question makes no contribution to building an encyclopaedia but rather seems likely to bring enwiki into disrepute. Newimpartial (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:UP, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:FRINGE, etc. This shouldn't be a controversial delete at all. Wikipedia is not the place to soapbox about fringe views, and Adoring nanny was recently indeffed for this kind of where behavior issues are tied to promoting fringe content.[5]. As others mentioned, this was a clear attempt at a WP:POVFORK shunted over to essay space, and the idea that it shouldn't be deleted because it's in user space doesn't really hold water. Something I'd ask the closer to looks at though is the validity of keep votes here. Most don't really seem to carry any weight. The first AfD probably should not have been closed as a clear keep, especially without explanation, but many are saying keep for the same reasons as last time. Others say keep per WP:UP when this essay runs counter to that guidance. At the end of the day, it's very clear the essay (and the now blocked user) were here to violate core principles of the enyclopedia when dealing with fringe subjects and that's a pretty high bar to overcome to keeping such content. KoA (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Courcelles has indefinitely blocked Adoring Nanny. Perhaps this WP:AE thread is related, I'm not sure. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Adoring_nanny/Essays/Lab_Leak_Likely_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1164805211"