RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Pandemic

Pandemic | Result: Kept

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) A general term that we don't need to define here. Non-missional, stub and an orphan at that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't see any missionality is having an article which is just a plain definition of a term. Flannan Isle (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep

 * Uh, fuck you no. The article is fine, inoffensive, and can(and maybe one day will be) expanded with the conspiracy theory/apocalypse bullshitting connections.  I see no compelling reason to remove this article.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (FYI I'm not saying I'm inoffensive). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, so that tone was a little uncalled for... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I know. Sorry.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Conspiracy buffs are always whining about the next pandemic. 20:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Whining about pandemics, absolutely - though rarely by the general term "pandemic", but by the specific buzzword names of certain diseases - e.g. Swine flu, AIDS or Ebola - all of which we cover well in their own respective articles. Further, the crank position on pandemics as a whole is by and large not different from the mainstream view - the woomeisters aren't here to discuss the existence or non-existence of pandemics as a concept. Even the ones who critizise herd immunity and other epidemic-oriented concepts are covered under our anti-vaxxer articles. Germ theory denialism is also covered already. I submit to you that this article adds little as it stands, though I'm not questioning that it could be grown to its own article in theory. But we can't sit here arguing on the theoretical basis of unwritten text - I say delete, and sure, in the theoretical scenario - let someone recreate it if they can actually make it contain anything of note to us. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The net benefit, though: pandemic can centralize all of the arguments, currently each existing alone, about how most claims about "IMPENDING PANDEMIC!!! EVERYONE WILL DIE!!! BUY GOLD!!!" are false. 20:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that's the thing though - the doomsday preppers and goldbugs don't see it as them crying "PANDEMIC!". They instead cry "X IS IMPENDING!!! EVERYONE WILL DIE!!! BUY GOLD!!!", where X is the name of a specific disease that they think is likely to be the one that tips out of control. And we cover all those alarms in their own articles. I mean, it's not like I don't see the theoretical utility of a pandemic article. But the case right now is that we basically don't have a pandemic article, and practically nothing else links to it. What's worse, the little stub of text we do have is exactly the type of definitional text we just don't do here. Let's argue for or against the existing actual text, no more or less. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) No reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) This is how Gaia will finally get her monkey-mange under control. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) A post-antibiotic world is absolutely possible.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 22:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Don't forget pandemic woo. (Homeopathy MP3s will save us from ebola!!) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect
To quote FCP above: "The net benefit, though: pandemic can centralize all of the arguments, currently each existing alone, about how most claims about "IMPENDING PANDEMIC!!! EVERYONE WILL DIE!!! BUY GOLD!!!" are false.". What say you that we actually make that happen? Do we merge the existing individual potential pandemic disease articles into this new main pandemic article? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)