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. The name has been sorted as per @Liz's note. Consensus appears clear to keep. Once this wave subsides and it's no longer a current event, this does not preclude an eventual merger but there isn't a consensus for one now. Star Mississippi 01:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai March 2022[edit]

COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai March 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has an unclear scope (the title states "March 2022" yet the body discusses events in February 2022 and April 2022), and there isn't enough content here to require a split from COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai. It seems like this might be about a lockdown, but the sources don't seem clear about making this a separate topic from the overall pandemic in the area, which would make the existence of this page not in line with how the relevant events are covered in sources (effectively WP:SYNTH). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: this is already a B class rated article on Chinese Wikipedia, and it is mainly discussing events in March.QiuLiming1 (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The scope of the article seems to be the ongoing outbreak that began in late February of this year. I'm not sure whether or not it should be merged with the COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai article, but I think the intended scope is coherent. If kept, it should probably be moved to March 2022 COVID-19 outbreak in Shanghai or something like that. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: It would be better to merge the article with COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai, rather than creating a separate article.Toadboy123 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Now I disagree, by November 2021, it only have 1 thousand cases, but just on April 8st(one day), it have over 20 thousand cases. We could change the title, but for example, COVID-19 did not stop in 2020 or 2021, but it is only named COVID-19.QiuLiming1 (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai without prejudice against splitting the articles again once content forking criteria, (specifically, "Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem") are met to justify separate articles.

  The relevant guidelines are:

  1. Wikipedia:Content forking says in the lead paragraph (my bolding):

     A content fork is the creation of multiple separate pieces of content (such as Wikipedia articles or inter-wiki objects) all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided, as the goal of a single source of truth is preferable in most circumstances. On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. Examples of this might be the cuisine of a particular region forking from an article about the region in general, a filmography forking from an article about an actor or director or a sub-genre of an aspect of culture such as a musical style.

  2. Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinoffs: "Summary style" meta-articles and summary sections says:

     There are two situations where spinoff subarticles become necessary, and, when done properly, they create the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible:

     1. Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem
     2. Large summary style overview meta-articles which are composed of many summary sections

     In both cases, summary sections are used in the main article to briefly describe the content of the much more detailed subarticle(s).

     Sometimes, when an article gets too long (see Wikipedia:Article size), an unduly large section of the article is made into its own highly detailed subarticle, and the handling of that subject in the main article is condensed into a brief summary section. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new subarticle is sometimes called a "spinoff" from the main article ("spinout" leads elsewhere); Wikipedia:Summary style explains the technique.

  3. Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues says:

     A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers. Understanding of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%. At 10,000 words (50 kB and above) it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style – see Size guideline (rule of thumb) below.

  4. Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline says:

     Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

     Readable prose size	What to do
     > 100 kB	Almost certainly should be divided
     > 60 kB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
     > 50 kB	May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
     < 40 kB	Length alone does not justify division
     < 1 kB	If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see Wikipedia:Stub.

     Please note: These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means), and each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters.

  There are the two relevant articles:
  1. COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai March 2022 (662 words): the Chinese version at zh:2022年3月上海市2019冠状病毒病聚集性疫情 is 236,000 bytes. As Mx. Granger noted, "The scope of the article seems to be the ongoing outbreak that began in late February of this year."
  2. COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai (2,609 words) – the Chinese version at zh:2019冠狀病毒病上海市疫情 is 115,000 bytes. The scope of this article is about the COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai including "the ongoing outbreak that began in late February of this year".
  I am supporting a merge of COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai March 2022 to COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai for now because there currently is not enough content in the two English Wikipedia articles to justify two separate articles. But based on the lengthy Chinese Wikipedia articles, it is likely that both English Wikipedia articles can be expanded enough to justify two separate articles under Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline. I therefore support a merge for now without prejudice against splitting the articles again once content forking criteria (specifically, "Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem") are met to justify separate articles.

  Cunard (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the thing is I am not familiar with medical stuff and not so many people is willing to translate. QiuLiming1 (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi QiuLiming1 (talk · contribs). Your user page says, "I am originally an editor from baidu baike, but my contributions was unknowingly got deleted, so I moved to Wikipedia after a year or so." I don't want you to get discouraged by the outcome of this AfD as I think you've done good work at COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai March 2022. I recommend that instead of working on COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai March 2022, you work on a section of COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai that discusses COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai March 2022. Once the section is long enough, it can be spun out into a separate article. If there is not enough information (either due to lack of information or lack of medical knowledge and translations), then that is fine and all of this information can remain in its section at COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai.

  Cunard (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, thank you but I think I am only allowed to put summary of COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai March 2022 article because it says "main article" under it?QiuLiming1 (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your continued good work on the article, QiuLiming1 (talk · contribs)! When I posted my first comment to the AfD, COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai March 2022 was 662 words. It has now grown to over 1,500 words. Although I don't consider merging COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai March 2022 to COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai to be undue weight yet, if the article continues on its trajectory of being substantially expanded as has happened over the past few days, a merge would be undue weight and there will be a convincing case for having separate articles. I am striking my "merge" recommendation and will abstain from offering an opinion about retention or merge for now. If the AfD is closed as "keep", I support a rename to remove "March" from the title since the article's scope extends beyond March 2022. Cunard (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

note: this article have several hundred pageviews/day recently and it is being included in some new sources, including this one (Time Magazine) QiuLiming1 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it. It serves no purpose. —ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C) 14:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or rename. This is great work, definitely strongly opposed to deletion. I think this should probably be merged into COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai, or otherwise renamed 2022 Shanghai COVID-19 outbreak or COVID-19 lockdown in Shanghai.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a current news, so I think maybe merge later(at least 1 month after?) because information is coming out daily? I am also translating info daily so keep for now is more convient?QiuLiming1 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @QiuLiming1: you are doing great work! Do you think it would be more difficult to integrate the news coming out into the existing COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai article? I understand that may need some restructuring of that article, but it's generally a good idea not to have content forking. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is mainly about the special lockdown policy while other one is about general pandemic QiuLiming1 (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, in that case I would support Keep and it should be renamed COVID-19 lockdown in Shanghai.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think better to rename to 2022 Shanghai COVID-19 outbreak. Sgnpkd (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's a top news in China Today. It deserves a separate article, past outbreaks are significantly different from what this article describes, but maybe the article would be better with a different name. Yinyue200 (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is a clearly notable subject here. Of course, it will be a little bit of time before we can say much for certain. The notion that people are being blocked from leaving their apartment for 13 days until their small area goes that long with no Covid cases, in a country that claims 80% vacination levels, is something that is going to get all sorts of coverage for a long time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

after the discussion is closed I could rename if there is a consensus of keeping. QiuLiming1 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable enough to stand on its own and different enough from the previous stuff. Recommend renaming the older article to include the year like the zhwp one. Merging would be tough given how small the target is; the change in case definition will also mess some things up. --Artoria2e5 🌉
• Keep This article is notable as evidenced by this article and this article. Shortbrief (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The problem is clearly article name not scope. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for all the comments. Other people have commented things other than "Keep", but I'm going to withdraw my nomination personally as the article has been significantly improved since I nominated it. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to 2022 Shanghai COVID-19 outbreak; it's still ongoing, so remove the March. lol1VNIO^{[not Lol1VNIO]} (talk • contribs) 23:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This discussion was closed prematurely by the article creator so I have reverted the closure. The article has also been moved to 2022 Shanghai COVID-19 outbreak so is at this page title now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 22 April 2022 (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.