The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 flu pandemic table[edit]

2009 flu pandemic table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An article that displays stats by a day-by-day basis is extremely unnecessary and fails the guideline WP:NOT#STATS and is an "excessive listing of statistics." There are already media such as graphs and templates that present this data in a much better and presentable fashion. The raw data from tables aren't needed. Either the article needs to be deleted, merged, or not provide such excessive detail with the stats. Douglasr007 (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia is an almanac according the Wikipedia:Five pillars. This information is important because it shows case progression, peaks, and decline of the epidemic. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia incorporates elements of an almanac according the Wikipedia:Five pillars. This information is important because it shows case progression, peaks, and decline of the epidemic. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is not 'extremely unnecessary'. It provides useful information about the ongoing pandemic and will become a historical record for the future. No other presentation gives the full details that this article does. I have also defended the article on its talk page.Anguswalker (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion at this time but I want to point out that it does NOT say in the five pillars that Wikipedia is an almanac. It says that it is an "encyclopedia incorporating elements of...almanacs...." That can be a crucial difference so we shouldn't misquote it. Drawn Some (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I changed the statement above. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found the table useful and interesting. It shows, for instance, that the U.S. passed Mexico in the number of cases on May 9, and that sometime between June 1 and June 3, the 10,000th American case was diagnosed (and I bet they didn't get a prize). My understanding of Wikipedia style, however, is that we would refer the reader to the links to the World Health Organization website. I'd rather see it kept than deleted, but I have no policy to refer to. Mandsford (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the timeline article. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, merge to 2009 swine flu outbreak timeline. We have too many separate articles on this subject and it's in danger of making information hard for end-users to find.

  Whatever happens, don't delete the content outright. This kind of article is exactly what Wikipedia does best: collect the very latest information from the web, put it into context, strip it of the spin, and make it available for free.

  Incidentally, the policy that Mandsford was looking for in his remark is WP:PRESERVE.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't merge This article and 2009 swine flu outbreak timeline are both likely to get quite large over the next few months, and to merge them would make for an extremely long page that would have a considerable effect on readability. With that in mind, I suggest that this page stands alone. Anguswalker (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Merge The information would lcutter the timeliune article and would need to be split out in the near future due to WP:VERYLONG. However in it current table forma tit is very hard to understand, so under that stance i would say Merge or Delete but as other have said the informaiton is useful so should be kept but the big question is how to do it. I would suggest Keep and for the table to be redone in Prose so each date has accurate account of what happen for increases in cses etc. The article will also need to be properlly soruced.--Andy Chat c 21:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• After reviewing the timeline article more it basically is double for this article but in a much more easier format, so i now Suggest Merge and Delete and convert any information on this page to prose that is not already on the timeline page--Andy Chat c 21:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Merge and delete" is not a possible outcome, because of the GFDL.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Timeline article is already 102k, longer than an article should be. This article presents the data in a useful form which allows insights not readily possible from other articles covering the subject, and presents data which is not readily availabple anywhere else in this form, since WHO just gives daily updates. The graphs do not break the data down adequately by country, and often lag far behind the data, due to the difficulty of editing the graphics. The information is important and is referenced. This is one case where the first of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia applies: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.". It is important to apply WP:PRESERVE. Alternatively, could such data tables, which should be expanded to include deaths, be placed in Wikisource, or is it only for texts? I do not agree that WP:NOT#STATS applies to this article, since that rule applies to long sprawling lists of numbers embedded in an article which make it hard to read. As that rule suggests, this data is neatly organized in tables. Edison (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a suitable sub-article of 2009 flu pandemic. If this article "violates" WP:NOT#STATS, then WP:NOT#STATS is a poor rule which should be ignored in this case. (Oh, and as Edison noted above, this data is in a table like WP:NOT#STATS recommends). We're talking about an ongoing global pandemic here, so I simply do not believe the nominator's claim that day-by-day stats are "extremely unnecessary." If this article bothers the nominator, they can always use the graph and templates they prefer. If you don't like it, don't deprive others of it. --Pixelface (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.