From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2021 June 6
2021 June 8 >

7 June 2021

  • Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis – Endorse, but allow new draft. There's pretty good consensus here that the MfD close was procedurally correct, with a couple of people noting that many of the keep arguments were correctly discounted due to off-wiki canvassing, SPAs, socking, etc. I only see two people arguing for an outright overturn; one of those looks to me more like relitigating the MfD, and the other (in part) argues that what we know today is different from what we knew four months ago when the MfD ran.
On the other hand, even several of the people arguing to endorse the MfD close from a procedural point of view admit that a new attempt at an article would be permissible, even if this particular draft isn't worth restoring. There was a running thread about the proper use of mainspace vs draft vs userspace vs POVFORK for controversial new article; I don't see any particular consensus there, which in turn means I'm not going to make any statement about where such a new attempt should be written.
Finally, I'll just note that the Origins_of_COVID-19 Arbcom case was referenced in the discussion. I didn't read the case, but I do suggest that if somebody wants to write a new article on this topic, getting up to speed on the history there would probably be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This deletion discussion for Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis was roughly concurrent with some edit warring at COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, which ultimately was redirected to COVID-19 misinformation#Lab accident. The deletion discussion of the the draft looked to me to be a pretty clear no-consensus, but it was closed with what I would characterize as a supervote that left much to be desired in the way of explanation, particularly given the importance of the topic and the volume of participation in the discussion: "The result of the discussion was: delete. The arguments for delete outweigh the keep.". I had considered initiating a deletion review back in February on the weight of mainstream, reliable coverage of the lab leak hypothesis presented not as misinformation that existed at the time (e.g. [1] and [2]). Now, given a slew of additional mainstream coverage (e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), I think we're compelled to review this matter. Thanks, Jweiss11 ( talk) 19:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply

  • I'd appreciate a temp-undelete. I'm also a bit curious as to why this is worth fighting over. Is there genuinely something in these pages that you want back, or is this simply a proxy for the broader debate over the lab-leak theory? If it's the latter, it would seem that your time would be better spent arguing over mainspace content (e.g. by participating in the pending talkpage discussions, RfCs, and ArbCom case) than relitigating the debate over these user- and draft-space pages. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Extraordinary Writ, The point of this review is that COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis should be its own article that presents the subject in a neutral fashion, rather than a redirect to COVID-19 misinformation. A starting point for this article would be either 1) a restoration of this version of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis or a similar version, 2) a restoration and publishing to the mainspace of the draft in question here, or some 3) some hybridization of the two. Rather than simply continuing the edit war in February, isn't the proper course of action to acknowledge the concurrent and related discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and reverse the decision that was made there? Jweiss11 ( talk) 02:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
But even if we give you everything you want here (by overturning the MfD to keep), you won't be any closer to getting that. All you'll have is a draft in draft-space; getting that draft into article-space would still require all sorts of additional discussions, probably including an RfC. My point is that you might as well go straight to the RfC, since this DRV won't make a difference one way or another. In other words, there's really nothing that we can do for you here. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Well, it will restore the draft if this review concludes in an overturn. At that point, it would make sense to review the draft and this version of "COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis" and see about pushing some combination of the two to the main space. If there's pushback on that, we then could do an RFC. Jweiss11 ( talk) 05:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
S Marshall, thanks for noting. I was previously unaware of this arbitration request. Jweiss11 ( talk) 02:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • As the deleting admin I really don't care if it's revived or not. The comment was not a "supervote" but an evaluation of what people had said in the discussion. The explanation of closing isn't mandatory, just customary. Nor is a longer explanation required just because the discussion is long. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. While the participants were evenly divided numerically, a proper closure must discount !votes made by sockpuppets, canvassed users, SPAs, and those whose arguments are not policy-based. There are by my count at least a half-dozen keep !votes that fall into one or more of those categories, while the delete !votes do not appear to be similarly afflicted. While there were obviously plenty of reasonable, well-argued keep !votes, they seem to have been exceeded (both numerically and by weight of argument) by the number of reasonable, well-argued delete !votes. Additionally, the delete side's TNT argument – that this draft as written was useless for mainspace purposes regardless of the topic's merits more generally – seems to have never been rebutted at all. In light of these facts, as well as my careful review of the discussion, I believe the closer interpreted the consensus reasonably. (A more detailed closing statement, while not required, would have made everyone's job here a lot easier.) That being said, this MfD was obviously not a total or eternal prohibition against lab-leak-related drafts. Things have (to put it mildly) changed a lot since February, and I find it improbable that a well-written, well-sourced draft written today would be referred to MfD at all. I, of course, express no opinion on the merits of the content dispute here. But if a solution to that dispute exists, it won't be found by relitigating a months-old closure of a months-old discussion of months-old drafts written with months-old sources. It will be found by more talk-page discussions (perhaps in the form of an an RfC) about how we ought to cover this complex, multifaceted, controversial, and difficult topic. But we needn't resolve all that today. As explained above, this closure was the scope of the closer's discretion, and so it ought to be sustained. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation in draft of an article epitomizing the best of core Wikipedia policies. Draftspace is indeed the most proper place to deal with highly controversial political topics when there's no clear consensus to present them as standalone articles or not. Personally, as someone who had spent a career investigating people doing stupid things, the idea that the idea that "someone screwed up" would itself be labeled a conspiracy theory seems farcical. (shrug) But it is what it is. Jclemens ( talk) 06:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    Draftspace is far from a good place for challenging topics, because in draftspace individual editors work in isolation. Wikipedia's success on controversial topics depends on many editors, even readers, watching, and stepping in when it goes bad. I believe that FORKing to draftspace should be forbidden, unless done with consensus at the talk page of the article currently covering the topic. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    Userspace sandboxes are where individual editors work in isolation. If draftspace is the same exact thing with a different name, why do we even have it? Seriously, even though I don't use draftspace, I do expect it to be a more collaborative space, and if I'm wrong, we're (Wikipedia as a whole) being stupid. :-) Jclemens ( talk) 00:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    Eg WP:DUD. Draftspace is sort of mandate for COI article writing, although they are perfectly welcome to use userspace. Apart from that, draftspace is a holding trap for junk. It is possible collaboration happens in draftspace, but I think it doesn’t, and the pretence that it does does harm, people drafting think they are contributing, but they may as well be working offline. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • temp undeleted for this discussion' Wily D 10:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Draftspace is not for POVFORKing. The topic is already covered in mainspace. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse for a start many of the Keep comments came from SPAs and the closer would have been entitled to downweight or disregard these. But even apart from that the strength of argument was on the side of those arguing for deletion. The justifications for keeping were largely based on the existence of sources about the topic, the topic passing notability guidelines, and the general topic being encyclopedic. None of that rebuts the arguments for deletion - that the draft was a POV fork and that it gives undue credibility to a fringe theory. Even if it is possible to write an appropriate article about the topic, that doesn't mean these particular drafts are worth keeping. Hut 8.5 11:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation per JClemens. Also, given the fundamental change in circumstances, WP:IAR. The whole Wikipedia project looks ridiculous not giving this matter the substantive coverage that is widely available today on reliable sources. Loksmythe ( talk) 13:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Is WP:POVFORK even a reason to delete a draft? The arguments for deletion were largely applicable to articles, not to draft space. And given that there is a large contengent of serious scientists in the area who think this is worth looking into, I don't see how we can justify not having an article actually on this topic in mainspace. Overturn. Hobit ( talk) 17:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    “ Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.” SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    Is working on a topic in draftspace even within the understanding of WP:CFORK? I suggest not, because that page both precedes its existence and doesn't appear to have been updated to engage with it. Jclemens ( talk) 06:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    The only acceptable FORK is WP:SPINOFF; take a large section from a large page, expand it as a spinoff, condense what is left behind, and put a section hatnote pointing to the spinout. This clearly can't with draftspace. Mainspace to draftpace links are forbidden. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    Right, and where is it said anywhere that part of that process cannot include copying the large section in question to draftspace, working on it there, and then later proceeding with the rest of the spinoff process? Again, the directions do not comment one way or another on draftspace and it seems to me to be because they haven't been meaningfully updated since draftspace was initiated. Jclemens ( talk) 20:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    POVFORK is a reason to delete because in the mfd it was given as a reason to delete, and the closer found it was the consensus to delete. Looking over it all again, I think the draftspace and other forks are the wrong battle. Instead, the bold redirect should be reverted, per User:Peregrine Fisher. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    RE. process cannot include copying the large section in question to draftspace, working on it there, and then later …. Not everything is documented, and more detail would be needed. My problem with this sort of thing is if it happens unilaterally and in secret, not even a note on the relevant article talk page. Also, I don’t think it is normal, instead, redrafting editors prefer to use an article talk page subpage. I think, POVFORKS are always bad, and CFORKS are also bad but without bad intent, and that wholesale redrafting should only be done with article talk page discussion. However, we are in a difficult awkward position here due to a bad pseudo-delete redirect to a “misinformation” article. The answer is to revert that bold redirect in favour of an AfD. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • You do all realize that this is one of the things that only Americans believe, right?— S Marshall  T/ C 22:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    • To my knowledge few serious people believe this. But lots of serious people think it worth understanding. Hobit ( talk) 22:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse This seemed like a difficult one DRV at first, but after a couple rereads, the restoration of the draft should be declined per Hut 8.5 - this wasn't a supervote and we are in WP:FRINGE territory. SportingFlyer T· C 12:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Allow Re-Creation of a new draft. I was mistaken in casting a Weak Delete, and should have said Weak Keep, although it is a content fork, but it was in draft space. No error by closer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Revert the redirect of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. The redirect is a pseudo-deletion, to a POV article title, and it was edit warred when it should have been take to AfD. The MfD discussed here is a downstream problem. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Revert the redirect and return to mainspace; overturn the delete closure as a POV close. The classification as misinformation is patentently prejudicial, in ignorance of, or deliberate rejection, of all recent reliable sources, including the NYTimes and the CDSC. This is an unproven hyporthesis, not misinformation. I would classify the original right wing conspiracy theory that it was a deliberate release as misinformation, or worse, , but that it may have been an accidental lab leak is on the contrary perfectly possible by common sense, and the possibility is in full accord with what is known about laboratory accidents with dangerous biological agents. . It's just a possibility, and, I expect, it will be disproven by biolgoical analysis; but it will rmain notable , because it has been discussed seriously by major RSs. This is the way redirectw\s should not be used. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    • DGG. Why was my closure of the draft "POV"? What in my editing history leads you to think that I was against the draft and wanted it gone prior to my closing it? I know I made about 12 edits to COVID-19 pandemic in Nunavut but that was a while ago, and that was basically adding images and updating numbers, and I don't recall anything else, but there may have been something. I'd like to understand why this was a POV so I can avoid it in the future. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva
perhaps I should have said , emphasizing a particular POV. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • DRV isn't the place to further a content dispute. That said, endorse (since I see no credible arguments that the closure of the discussion was wrong - which was heavily affected by off-wiki canvassing and single-purpose accounts, I assume rightfully ignored by the closing administrator) and allow recreation if there is consensus via the regular editing process for a spin-off (which I do not see at this moment). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: I don't think any of the commenters here who have endorsed the original decision have addressed the myriad of new (newer than February), reliable sources that establish the lab leak hypothesis as a notable subject (i.e. point #3 in which deletion review is intended to be used). Jweiss11 ( talk) 03:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply

That's an argument for creating a new version, ideally via the regular editing process (by demonstrating there is a need for a split). Not for recreating a dubious, slanted POVFORK. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The current redirect is the dubious, slanted POVFORK we're looking for as it simply buries a notable hypothesis and tars it as "misinformation" instead of treating it with a neutral POV. This draft needs some work for sure, but it contains many useful passages and sources that could be used to build the article that Wikipedia needs on this subject. Jweiss11 ( talk) 19:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_June_7&oldid=1030542601"