Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Gard treatment controversy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Nomination withdrawn. There is no consensus to delete this. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Gard treatment controversy

[edit]
Charlie Gard treatment controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This (article at the time of this nomination) is really Wikipedia at its worst. NOTNEWS and TOOSOON are relevant here. This is completely 24-hours news cycle driven and most of the article is WP:COATRACK/OFFTOPIC/CRYSTALBALL hype about the investigational treatment that is ~proposed~ to be given to this poor kid. Not to mention the BLP/privacy issues for the kid and his family. Not to mention the gossip about Trump's latest tweeting. Delete and salt. We can create an article on this in a year or two when there is something encyclopedic to say, if there is anything. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG. This has received widespread international coverage and both Pope Francis and Donald Trump are involved. Apparently, now congressional legislation has been introduced to make Charlie Gard a U.S resident so he can receive this experimental treatment in the U.S.[1] The controversy has been widely discussed regarding bioethical issues such as right to die with dignity as well as parental rights. Clean up and fix the article instead of deleting. --DynaGirl (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That it is "hot news" is irrelevant. You also say nothing about the BLP issues here, which are very relevant. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure I see BLP violations in the previous or stripped down version of the article but I brought the issue to WP:BLPN to get more eyes on it.--DynaGirl (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Grief porn. hm. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - as it seems to be becoming an important, notable, medical ethics case per WP:GNG. As I read it now, it seems to have been trimmed to make it more encyclopedic, and an article will be needed at some point. But it will need careful attention as it is is essence a BLP, and to avoid more, non-neutral day-to-day updates.Jrfw51 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome...Seems an acceptable recommendation if link is maintained in this article. However, I do not agree is OFFTOPIC and CRYSTALBALL to include scientific references from EMBO Journal and PNAS (deleted several times today, WHY??) that are relevant for the case from a medical point of view. Scientific censorship is acceptable in Wikipedia? DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2017‎ (UTC) — DoctorBiochemistry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTNEWS says "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" This is getting 4000 hits a day. People are expecting us to cover it somewhere. There are lots of decent news sources dealing with this controversy so I would call it a significant current event. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There's a possibility this might become notable, but the existing controversy definitely is not. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With around 4000 hits per day it should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not be opposed to merging to the disease article and keeping the WEIGHT there minimal. That, or delete. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it was a mistake to create this article so soon. But now that it was created we can cover it at Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. If it gets too long in about 6 months or a year then it will end up being unmerged. It may get longer because of the Trump-effect. Articles like this can be difficult to write. The line between news and MEDRS can get blurred for new editors. QuackGuru (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could close the AFD discussion and move it to a draft page and briefly mention it in Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. Then redirect the page to Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome to the appropriate section. QuackGuru (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's an idea but with something that raises passions like this, as well as with the vocal presence of people who confuse Wikipedia with some kind of semi-gussied-up current-events blog, we need a consensus decision to have something stable. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Depending on the close, you may be able to add it to a draft page with a brief mention in Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. With this much recent news new editors need a place to edit. You don't want all the mess added to the Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it doesn't seem like a good option to merge with Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome because it seems most of the reliable source coverage regarding this controversy is not specific to the disease, but rather regarding right to die with dignity vs parental rights etc. It involves bioethical issues regarding who decides (or should decide) if treatment is continued or discontinued. The coverage heavily involves the political issues such as Donald Trump's involvement and the proposed congressional legislation to make Charlie Gard a U.S resident so he can receive this experimental treatment in the U.S. The sourcing also heavily involves religious issues such as Pope Francis' involvement and religious objections to ending life support. None of this would fit well in the Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome article. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON, with the caveat that editors are welcome to undelete once the child has died and there are considered secondary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The case could very easily find a place in Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome it would also add the ethics of life/death that unfortunately have come with this case and condition, to those reading the article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, and make sure a search for "Charlie Gard" redirects there. (Just my humble opinion/suggestion). HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this doesn't seem out of place in List of medical ethics cases or its corresponding template. The substance, the degree of international notice, and the weight of legal precedent being set seem comparable to the Schiavo case and similar. Chris Smowton (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the original Charlie Gard article is an excellent short summary, quite neutral in tone, and is NOT too soon. The parents have publicized their campaign, they have raised 1.3 million Pounds for the US treatment, and organized a 350,000 signature petition just handed in to 10 Downing Street (home of UK Prime Minister May); so they are not going to object to (in fact they would support) a Wikipedia article; whether published before or after death does not matter in this case. The article should be retained in its current format, updated as current events change - eg there will need to be an update to cover the 10 July court case decision discussing new evidence indicating that nucleoside therapy may indeed work (10% chance). User:anthonyb-uk 09:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's received extensive news coverage over a significant period of time and internationally, but it also involves important issues of English law, such as it's likely to be of continuing relevance. Could do with more explanation of legal issues. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • as Jyt indicated we are NOTNEWS,.. however(reiterating what I indicated above), the case could very easily find a place in Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, it would also add the ethics of life/death that unfortunately have come with this case and condition, to those reading the article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trying not to repeat myself, as others are doing, but I think this is notable for the legal ethical issues raised regarding parental-clinician-court decisions rather than what it adds to the entry about the the syndrome. Jrfw51 (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not "Wikipedia at its worst." The issue is not going away but getting bigger and is on its way to becoming a landmark case. – Athaenara ✉ 14:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this is WP at its worst. And "becoming a landmark case" is a 100% CRYSTALBALL claim. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Others have put it much better than I, but it is clear to me that this is a case of international significance and importance. It is far from driven by a 24-hour news cycle: this issue has been at the height of controversy for many months and it will continue to be discussed for many more months to come. Specto73 (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has received wide coverage from all over the world Spiderone 17:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to re-iterate - the fact that we are getting !votes giving similarities to "Terri Schiavo's state-sanctioned murder" as a putatively policy-based reason to !keep this article - in other words, that are very clear that this page in WP should be part of an advocacy effort to "save Charlie" - shows that it will be impossible to maintain any kind of neutrality here, especially in light of this being breaking news with no sources that have any distance from the unfolding events. To the extent that there are serious medicolegal and ethical issues here, scholarly sources summarizing them are not available here and now, in the heat of this moment. WP is not and cannot be used as a vehicle for advocacy for any side of this dispute, and people's efforts to do so, exactly violate BLP. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog Since you quoted me , I'll respond:

I didn't vote keep to advocate, that's not Wikipedia's place. I voted keep so that we can report the reliably - sourced facts in this case, and because it's important and has world-wide ramifications. I would not and will not use Wikipedia to advocate anything , that would violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view . Reporting the reliably - sourced facts (via reliably sourced information ) would not.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 19:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:KoshVorlon you have now simply misrepresented what you actually wrote which was, in its entirety *KEEP This is Terri Schiavo's state-sanctioned murder all over again, only this time it's in the UK. We need to keep this article up, per Athanenara and Colapeninsula !. It is almost impossible for a !vote to be less policy-based and more advocacy-based than that, complete with all-caps, bolding, exclamation points, and nonencyclopedic reference to a related case. This kind of fundamental violating of the principles and policies that allow Wikipedia to function at all (first ignoring WP policy in !voting, and then misrepresenting that !vote), are again why we should delete this article - topics like this are not encyclopedic fodder while they are unfolding. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog So, it looks like you didn't read my statement very well, I made a declarative statement then said keep per the reasons given by Athaneara and Colapenisula, both of which, especially, Colapenisula's , is very much policy based. Yes, I have a POV on this article and on Terri Schiavo's article which is why I've been observing a voluntary TBAN on both articles.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 20:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply but I will not continue this. We have both said our piece. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I googled Charlie Gard, and was very very happy to see that Wikipedia had an article on it. Much better quality info and a better overview than the "news" sites. DlronW (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject (Charlie) has now become notable. If treatment is successful he will become a James Phipps, who as a child was used as medical guinea pig and helped to advance medical science. Aspro (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I decry the way our society has turned this case into a huge issue, but nevertheless that is what has happened. This is a big event, with repeated headlines across multiple newspapers over an extended period of time. We should cover it. Bondegezou (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OFFTOPIC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This discussion page is proof why wikipedia doesn't make it to top 10 most visited sites and can make 0$ from advertising. Anti-Trumpers, Clinton lovers, neo-liberal violence promoters all want decent pages to be deleted. Total control of speech is their concept of free speech (first amendment and other countries' laws be damned). Look at them promoting the virtue of privacy of a little boy while pretending to need no privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.141.20 (talk • contribs)

LOL. Wikipedia is in the top 10, number 6 if I recall correctly, and if it would allow advertisements then it would make shitloads of money. The closest things we got to ads are banners begging for donations, and people donate a large amount each time one of those banners is displayed. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Number 5 actually. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dislike this article, the news coverage and the way the issue has been handled in almost every way, except by GOS and the courts themselves.
That said, I cannot see any way in which this article doesn't meet WP standards for inclusion. Delete it for reasons of basic human decency (which isn't a thing on WP), but there is no WP policy reason to delete it, and that's what we have to base this decision on. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Important case involving parental rights. Been front page in several newspapers and has attracted comments from U.K. parliament, the Vatican and the Whitehouse. Hence not low key. However perhaps changes to current article be suspended until after on going court case has been decided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.223.243 (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlie_Gard_treatment_controversy&oldid=1144196527"