Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 : Tar nis hed Path talk 09:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions .  Tar nis hed Path talk 09:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom.  There are no legitimate reasons I can think of to have two articles on the same subject.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 10:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On a first brief look, I am not convinced that this article in its current state is a WP:POVFORK of Origin of COVID-19 .  The first sentence, for example, is SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, was first introduced to humans through zoonosis.  Also, it seems to spend quite a lot of space refuting some features of SARS-CoV-2 that have been proposed as 'evidence' by conspiracy theories ('furin cleavage sites' etc.) which its parent article does not do (and perhaps should).  Perhaps someone can point out where this article diverges from the mainstream consensus, or contradicts or undermines the parent article (preferably without mentioning blocks or sanctions against the original author ).  In fact, the structure of this article looks a lot like the 'Zoonosis' section of the Origin of COVID-19 article should look.  Perhaps we should move Origin of COVID-19 to Chronological history of investigations and reactions to investigations into the origin of COVID-19 , then move Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 to Origin of COVID-19 , and add the unlikely theories like lab leak and the other kooky stuff to the bottom?  Tewdar 12:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Biology , COVID-19 ,  and Medicine .  Tar nis hed Path talk 12:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - Tewdar has a point that this article includes a few details that the parent article does not.  However, that does not justify the existence of this fork article, and certainly does not justify turning this into the primary parent article.  A merge retains the information we need, and then any formatting & layout concerns can be brought to the remaining article.  — The Hand That Feeds You : Bite 13:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think there is more than enough here to warrant its own article.  I don't see this a fork at all, but a fuller discourse on the subject.  Graham Beards ( talk ) 13:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep If anything, some material from the Origin of COVID-19 article should be moved here.  The Origin of COVID-19 works well as an overview ("Main") article, and specific sub-subjects should have their own article.  Abiogenesis similarly is a carryall "Main" article with a number of separate articles on various theories for the Origin of Life.  This article would become massive and unwieldy if merged.  Jaredroach ( talk ) 14:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - having now reviewed the article, I can find no evidence that this is a (POV) fork, and I can't really see how it could be, since its 'parent' would probably be better titled ' Chronology of Investigations into the Origin of COVID-19 '.  Per Graham Beards, this article appears to be a fuller discourse on the subject which probably couldn't reasonably have all its relevant content merged with its supposed parent.  Incidentally, there is no good reason not to have a more detailed child article just because an overwhelming majority of scientists believe something: some article groups don't even seem to have a parent article, even though there is one theory that near-completely dominates competing theories, e.g. Recent African origin of modern humans vs Multiregional origin of modern humans (but no Origin of modern humans parent article, which is a redirect to Early modern human#Age and speciation process ).  Tewdar 15:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic currently.  Perhaps we should prune any chronological details from parent and move before a merge.  2600:8804:6600:4:E857:BFEB:7B9A:9779 ( talk ) 18:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is a chronology of the pandemic, not a chronology of investigations into the origin of the virus.  Tewdar 22:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good point, should we use it as a template for Timeline of the COVID-19 origin investigation ?  2600:8804:6600:4:4C95:F6C6:D097:4C8B ( talk ) 16:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  Whether it is a POVFORK, a non-POV fork or just a spin-off article, it does not seem necessary to have two articles.  A reasonable estimate of the size of a merged article would be a little over 6,000 words.  That's not big enough to require a WP:SIZESPLIT .  One could argue that, while we would not split it if it was already merged, it is unnecessary effort to merge it given that it is already split.  That's arguable but I feel that having one less COVID article to protect from the interventions from cranks would probably justify that effort in the long term.  -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 18:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How have you arrived at this estimate of 6000 words?  I make it ~7307 words.  5247 (prose size of Origins of COVID-19 article ) - 374 (current Zoonosis section in Origins... article, assuming 100% duplication in the other article) + 2434 (size of Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 article) = 7307 words, for which WP:SIZESPLIT does not tell me 'What to do'.  The article has had 6 edits, and 428 views, in the last 30 days, so protecting it from interventions from cranks does not appear to be a pressing concern at the moment.  And, if having two articles is a problem, we should probably delete Origins of COVID-19 , not this one.  It only has four paragraphs in the Zoonosis section, and is mainly a chronology of investigations into COVID origins.  Perhaps it should be moved to a more suitable title.  Tewdar 19:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  There are currently two theories regarding the origins of covid: a lab leak and zoonosis.  Even though zoonosis is the mainstream theory, for some reason its page is only the third of the size of the lab leak theory page.  For balance I think it would be a good idea to keep the zoonosis page instead of merging it.  Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be clear, these theories are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, they cannot be.  Whether or not anything happened in a lab that contributed to the pandemic, whatever happened before the lab was zoonotic.  Not that this nuance is terribly relevant to the keep/delete discussion, but it may not be widely appreciated.  Jaredroach ( talk ) 15:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jaredroach , "whatever happened before the lab".  Can you clarify what you exactly mean by that?  Tar nis hed Path talk 04:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging @ ජපස , @ Sennalen , @ DFlhb , @ MisterWizzy , @ Aquillion , @ Bon courage , @ Generalrelative and @ Novem Linguae as editors who were all involved in a previous merge discussion which seems to have gone nowhere.  Apologies if I missed anyone.  Tar nis hed Path talk 05:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there was agreement to merge, and it's on my (long) TODO list.  But there's an amount of fiddly busy work to be done reconciling the citation formats, so it's not just a cut and paste job.  Bon courage ( talk ) 07:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bon courage , it seemed to me that there was consensus for a merge, however that seemed to have gone stale so I thought it best to raise this especially considering I couldn't find a merge template?  Tar nis hed Path talk 07:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge seems fine to me. I am sympathetic to the complaints that there ought to be more real estate to this explanation than the lab leak flights of fancy.  jps ( talk ) 11:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Might I suggest that the end result for this reconciliation process should be a well-organized bibliography section that uses sfn, like the Zoonotic origins... article, rather than just shoving the references in any old how at the end of a sentence with <ref name= scattered all over the place, like the Origins... article.  Tewdar 09:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Origin of Covid-19 .  This was created as a WP:POVFORK , and efforts to salvage it are a solution looking for a problem - everything here is simply the origin of COVID-19 and should be covered on that article.  -- Aquillion ( talk ) 06:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Should have Origin of Covid-19 and Covid-19 Conspiracy Theories 2600:8804:6600:4:D29:B065:C6ED:8647 ( talk ) 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Updating to TRIPLE Reverse Merge after reviewing comments below it seems best to move content to this page and retire Origin of Covid.  All theories that have no scientific basis should be contained to Covid-19 Conspiracy Theories because they rely on broad accusations of conspiracies perpetrated  by scientists or governments.  2600:8804:6600:4:C85E:667E:14B1:53B ( talk ) 00:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See also: Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19#CFORK or POVFORK?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 ( talk • contribs ) Keep per Jaredroach and Graham Beards.  - SchroCat ( talk ) 17:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  This content would work best in the origins article; in the unlikely event it ever gets too big it can be spun out again.  Bon courage ( talk ) 20:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] TRIPLE Keep … The COVID topic, including its origins, has unfortunately fallen victim to over-politicization.  My 'triple' remark is intended as a light-hearted joke, albeit one that may not translate well through text.  However, setting jest aside, nobody here has disputed the fact that this article outshines the main COVID origins article in terms of its organization, composition, and fidelity to the source material.  While I certainly don't claim expertise in this field, I find it noteworthy that editors with proven knowledge, including Jared Roach and Graham Beards , have overwhelmingly supported its retention.  XMcan ( talk ) 18:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] nobody here has disputed the fact that this article outshines the main COVID origins article That's an incredibly hyperbolic statement that does not match what people have said.  At best, there are some facts in this article that can be merged into the main one.  — The Hand That Feeds You : Bite 12:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just in case Perhaps we should move Origin of COVID-19 to Chronological history of investigations and reactions to investigations into the origin of COVID-19, then move Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 to Origin of COVID-19 was not clear enough: the Origins of COVID-19 article is not an article about the Origins of COVID-19.  It is a chronological history of investigations and reactions to investigations into the origin of COVID-19, with four pathetic paragraphs about the mainstream Zoonotic origins theory, two lousy paragraphs about 'Unlikely scenarios', and a whopping 50+ paragraphs about investigations and reactions to investigations into the origin of COVID-19.  In short, in my opinion, this article outshines the main COVID origins article and should probably be the basis for that article.  Also, the referencing system used in the other article suuuuuucks .  Tewdar 19:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per my reasoning in the earlier talk page discussion.  DFlhb ( talk ) 08:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and merge other content into this article as needed.  This article is higher quality than the other COVID origins articles, particularly in NPOV.  Better to raise the other articles to this standard than to lower it to theirs.  - Palpable ( talk ) 06:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You've not given an argument for why this article is more NPOV.  PS, reference formatting isn't it.  Tar nis hed Path talk 13:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For a start, the 'Investigations' section of the Origin of COVID-19 article is massively undue for an article purportedly (according to its title, at least) about the evolutionary pathway of the virus and the manner of its transmission to humans.  This section, which is comparatively massive, is heavily dependent on relatively low-quality news sources.  The level of detail about controversies surrounding the various investigations is ridiculously undue in such an article.  The chronological summary style also results in undue weight for the lab leak theory ("an investigation found lab leak unlikely ", "another investigation found it unlikely" "a third investigation found it unlikely", "ooh, this investigation found it plausible", "oh look, this one doesn't rule it out either"...) This is not how to write an NPOV encyclopedia article on the Origin of COVID-19.  Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to once again give my opinion on the terrible reference formatting, which is just thrown together, much like the rest of the article.  Incidentally, nobody has given any argument for why this article is a WP:POVFORK , despite this being the original reason given for why this article should be deleted/merged and despite me asking if Perhaps someone can point out where this article diverges from the mainstream consensus, or contradicts or undermines the parent article and even putting this request in bold font.  Zero Zip Zilch Nada.  Tewdar 15:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if you don't recognize the house style, the discussion history makes it clear that the Origin of COVID-19 article is proudly and unashamedly polemic.  - Palpable ( talk ) 15:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - These articles are apples and pears.  This article describes what it says it does, looking carefully at the hypotheses and explaining as it goes, whereas Origin of COVID-19 tells us more about the investigations than the actual origins of the virus.  So, if we had to only keep one, I would say it should be this one, and we should merge the other article into here, largely as a kind of addendum about the investigations and politics.  Or we could keep both, and perhaps signpost between them.  This is clearly not a POVFORK.  There is no POV here.  It could be classed as a content fork, but forks are acceptable as long as they are not a WP:BADFORK .  If not a POV fork (and again, it isn't) then the other BADFORK is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK .  But it isn't redundant.  There is plenty on this page that is not on that one.  So not a bad fork, and no case for deletion.  What about merge?  Well that is an available outcome at AfD, but in this case the AfD was started during an unclosed merge discussion, and the merge discussion may have foundered because there is a prima facie case it was backwards.  That Origin of COVID-19 should be merged here.   Nevertheless the discussion is ongoing and this AfD is thus out of process for that merge discussion.  Better that this is closed as keep and then the merge discussion can then proceed.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 16:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm intrigued by this 'reverse merge' idea which will effectively shut down Wikipedia saying the origin of SCV2 was anything other than zoonotic.  Maybe people are getting more sensible here!  Bon courage ( talk ) 16:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The four pathetic paragraphs about zoonotic origins and the two lousy paragraphs about 'Unlikely scenarios' in the other article can quite easily be merged into this one.  Then Origin of COVID-19 can be moved to a more appropriate title, like Chronological history of investigations, controversies surrounding investigations, politicisation of investigations, email correspondence regarding investigations, and architecture of buildings used to carry out investigations into the origin of COVID-19 or something like that.  Tewdar 19:02, 20 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus