Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infodemic

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 no consensus. There is consensus to not delete the article, but no consensus about whether it should be kept or merged (and if so, where to). That's a matter for further talk page discussion. Sandstein 10:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infodemic

Infodemic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A neologism that, although used in RSes, don't seem to have much background in it other than one history sentence that may warrant a Wikipedia article, such as Fuck. A Wiktionary entry is present, and that seems enough. Here, nearly all results are from the Voice of America, and merely use the term, without stating anything about that specific word, something you expect in articles about words. GeraldWL 13:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. GeraldWL 13:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge with Epidemic. This term has increasingly been used by the media and WHO and could be useful to our readers. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 15:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It does not show a WP:MERGEREASON - it is not duplicate or overlap to Epidemic or other articles. I would suggest a See Also at misinformation or disinformation. It does seem prominent in RS and common usage at 1.2M google hits - e.g. Nature, Lancet, WHO, the U.N., NY Times, National Geographic, Has it’s blog, WSJ, NBC News, etcetera. Merrimack-Webster traces it here to a 2003 Washington Post article on SARS. Beyond just a description of situation, it is discussed as a practical difficulty for researchers from too much research in one topic at ZD Net and CMU and Science Daily; as a social studies topic; as a social media policing with health officials CNN. I don’t think the multiple concerns from infodemics would be addressed by any way other than its own article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does IMO per Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merger's #3 –Short text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. (and maybe even #4 too). Notice also that in almost a 1-year period, this stub has not expanded beyond its rough two paragraphs. Btw, I'm not against keeping, though merging would bring the topic to more of our reader's attention. G'Day, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 16:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to Keep. I just created same page in Irish. The page is useful in Irish as it helps define and develop the vocabulary and there are not many forums where that can be done. The meaning of the term in English is obvious, but terminology in other languages far less so. TGcoa (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TGcoa, this feels off. You basically said to vote to keep because Irish people won't understand the term. We're talking about the English WP, foreign-language WPs are mildly of concern here. GeraldWL 08:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other language are maybe mildly of concern but something to bear in mind. If the article in English is deleted, the pages in the other languages will continue. Odd? These pages in other languages help with defining the term, when the word or words to be used, how to translate the idea or ideas, is not entirely obvious. So keeping the page in English indirectly helps the other languages, some of them like Irish, fighting to survive.TGcoa (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TGcoa, it doesn't matter. The English language is not the backbone of others. If someone on the Irish WP starts an AFD because it is deleted in English, and there's no right reason to delete it there, then it should be kept there, but not here. Common rookie mistake, nothing to fear. GeraldWL 14:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to Keep. WHO has a Department fo Infodemics (https://www.who.int/teams/risk-communication). This is the source of a rapidly growing field cognate with infodemiology (named and definied by Prof Gunther Eysenbach in 2002 - Eysenbach G. Infodemiology: The epidemiology of (mis)information. Am J Med (Editorial) 2002 13 (9): 763-765). My paper "Infodemics and infodemiology: A short history and a long Future" has just been accepted by the Pan American Journal Of Pulbic Health — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggy119 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Rumo(u)r as they are the same thing. This is the main point of WP:DICDEF, "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 25 February 2021 (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.