Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vaccine topics

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 (non-admin closure). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of vaccine topics

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

Unencyclopedic and largely random collection of articles, no context provided. Redundant to the much better-organised Category:Vaccination. Many secondary problems with WP:UNDUE in the order and heavy focus on fringe articles about antivaccinationist topics (possibly accidental), but the incoherency of this list is enough in itself.

Quite simply, this isn't a list, this is an attempt to duplicate a category. There's no attempt to organise topics, they're presented in random order, there's no hierarchy, and there's... just generally nothing worth saving. This "article" has no real focus, it's pretty much just WP:CSD A3's article with no content except a restating of the title and a see also section. 86.** IP (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a random group of topics, rather than an encyclopedic listing. Appears to fail WP:LISTN, in that this particular grouping does not appear to be discussed in reliable sourcing. Yobol (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Do you doubt the grouping is relevant? Do you believe that you need a reliable source for every single grouping in all Wikipedia articles? "Human vaccines" list the articles for vaccines developed for disease humans got. Do you doubt that medical encyclopedias and other publications would list these together as vaccines for humans? And do you doubt that the items in the section "Vaccines under research" would have news coverage listing they were under research and calling them vaccines? What section do you have a problem with? Dream Focus 15:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean and rename. I took from it List of people associated with vaccination, including both developers of vaccines and anti-vaccination campaigners, under headings. Will need checking that all the anti-vaccination people are notable. Then take that out of here, and all the other stuff, just keep the vaccines and rename back to List of vaccines, which currently redirects here. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's done, note that "Vaccine critic" is a neologism that's not used in reliable sources. I was researching it for another article. (When put in quotes, it has a mere 5300 ghits, 7 book results, no news results, 10 google scholar, and these are pretty much all trivial mentions. It is NOT a distinct classification, and should not be treated as such.) 86.** IP (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Turn it into a proper list article. Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly can use some trimming and sourced annotations of many entries would significantly improved the useability of the list, but there's no doubt this list meets the requirements of WP:list and WP:SAL.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Nom argues that this list is duplicative of a category. That is an invalid deletion argument and should be wholly ignored. WP:NOTDUP specificially allows redundancy between lists and categories and is also cited as an argument to avoid in Arguments to avoid --Mike Cline (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I initially suspected this would be relatively redundant of Vaccine, the content is really not; Vaccine ably covers the scientific background/basis of the topic, but much of what is linked to from List of vaccine topics is not covered there as it doesn't quite fall under the scope of what that article concentrates on. Per various parts of WP:LIST (i.e. section "Information"), this article seems acceptable. Kansan (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Yobol, the particular grouping is not discussed in reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a SETINDEX article. It is a useful page for navigating topics related to vaccines. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Selection and grouping of items violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:GEVAL and WP:UNDUE, and is not based on any such listing or grouping in reliable independent sources. Grossly violates WP:NLIST; list items seem to be selected and cherry picked from dubious sources based on their political utility. Strong POV in favor of the fringe anti-vaccinationist view. Clearly violates WP:CFORK, as the content is already present in other articles. Of limited or no navigational value. POV fork of Category:Vaccination. Clearly a politically motivated stunt to promote the anti-vaccinationist cause. No point in keeping the list in the hope that it will one day be improved to the point of encyclopedic significance or utility. If there ever is a genuine need for such a list, it can be created from scratch, not on the basis of this one. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it list every single vaccine related article in Wikipedia? It isn't cherry picked if it list everything. And it certainly does not violated WP:CFORK. Dream Focus 15:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See Wikipedia:LIST - Navigation section in the Manual of Style for lists. The article is functional as a means to navigate topics regarding vaccines and vaccination, particularly when people may not know the terms and/or terminology they are searching for. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's REALLY badly done... 86.** IP (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not discuss specifically what you don't like about it on the talk page and work towards improvement. Not liking an article is never a valid reason to delete it. Dream Focus 15:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia rules state you don't destroy a list article because you prefer categories instead, the two can both exist. Listing related articles, all of them blue links, aids in navigation, and helps people find what they are looking for. Perfectly valid list article. Dream Focus 15:39, 16 October 2011 (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.