Deletion of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis

Comment: Overwhelming amount of coverage in 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Notable in culture, but already covered at two other articles, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and {{section link|COVID-19 misinformation|Wuhan lab origin}}.  This redundant material can either result in a  or in duplicated text needing unnecessary extra maintenance.  A redirect resulting from a merge would also resolve for searches
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: The topic has received far more than enough coverage to warrant its own article. There is a clear gap in coverage and merit between the lab leak hypothesis and less popular hypotheses; an article jointly discussing them would have to be dominated by a single topic to satisfy . As of now, there doesn't seem to be much push for a mega-article solely on the key origins hypotheses (the other being natural zoonotic spillover). Failing something like that, this requires its own topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE)

Comment: per  and the refs in the lead. The truth of the hypothesis is controversial; its existence is not. Anyone who wants to write an article about the zoonosis hypothesis is obviously free to do so, as that also meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: Official investigation is ongoing.  Various prominent virologists have publicly stated they kept an open mind. Including Dr Fauci. It's high time obstruction by a few random biased editors is thwarted 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: as a standalone article. Six months ago I would have said delete or merge as at the time the topic was generally regarded as a fringe conspiracy theory. But consensus among  can and does change and that's what happened here. Given the massive amount of coverage the subject has received in the last three months in numerous  and given various ongoing government investigations, continuing to fudge the topic here on Wikipedia is an untenable position. Arguments saying that the article may become a POV pushing and disruption magnet constitute an appeal to |censorship, which cannot be justified for a highly notable topic such as this one. We have various mechanisms in place for dealing with disruption and POV pushing that could and should be used here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: There is more than enough evidence to support an article, except that applying |the medically reliable source standard to a question that is not a medical question is imposing a sterile orthodoxy and preventing Wikipedia from summarizing what |reliable sources really say.  |The medically reliable source standard is a lagging standard, imposing a standard of verification that is higher than |the reliable source standard that is only needed to protect readers from getting incorrect medical information from Wikipedia (which they shouldn't be using for that purpose anyway).  The origin of covid is not medical information.  How to test for, diagnose, treat, and prevent covid is medical information.  So keep this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS||WP:RS||WP:MEDRS||WP:RS)

Comment: as an independently notable topic worthy of a page. There has been a lot of good content that has been deleted from COVID-19 investigations for reasons of  and, so it's clearly necessary to have this page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE)

Comment: topic already covered sufficiently in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and {{section link|COVID-19 misinformation|Wuhan lab origin}} as noted above. Worry that this kind of article might demonstrate  considering the topic is covered elsewhere and is among a number of hypotheses that are equally notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS)

Comment: The conspiracy-theorizing about COVID-19 is a big story and an independent encyclopedic topic (very obviously passes : multiple instances of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources).  Merging this into the article on the investigations into the causes of the disease and origins of the virus would drown that article in material about conspiracy theories and their debunking.  We  /  for good reasons, and this is one of those reasons.  As for the {{em|current}} state of the article, it is very well-sourced, and most of the NOR/NPOV issues have already been buffed out; mutiple editors are working on cleaning it up.  Cf. the majority of the section {{slink|Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SPLIT||WP:SPINOUT)

Comment: We don't have an article on the zoonotic hypothesis, so I see this as a . While this clearly isn't a fringe theory anymore, it is still considered unlikely by  sources, and popular media isn't going to give us the depth and reliability on this highly politicized topic that is enough to write a separate article about. Maybe come back to this topic in a few years once the pandemic finally ends, and probably by then MEDRS will catch up to write about this in more detail
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:MEDRS)

Comment: It's been suggested a few times, but please don't.  A  close would probably be defensible, but in a controversial area, the last thing you want is something which is "probably defensible".  What you want is iron-clad consensus, and you don't get that by cutting corners
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)