Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Vac

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 merge‎ to COVID-19 vaccination in Germany#Above-average number of "post-vac" reports in Germany. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Vac

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Inappropriate content fork covering adverse effects attributed to covid-19 vaccination in German-speaking countries. The adverse effects of the vaccine are the same in Germany etc. as any other country so this term makes no sense for an enwiki article title. The content should be covered if WP:DUE at COVID-19 vaccine or potentially adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine if a split is merited. (t · c) buidhe 14:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against deletion but the article should be renamed: I'm not a native English speaker but the term "post-vac" sounds very English to me – yet I didn't find articles about it from other countries than Germany, Switzerland and Austria. And the articles from Germany and Switzlerland are really profound, it is an established term there.

""Post-Vac-Syndrom": Mehr als die Hälfte der weltweiten Fälle in Deutschland registriert". www.aerzteblatt.de (in German). 29 June 2023. Retrieved 13 July 2023.
"Post-Vac-Syndrom - Schwer krank nach Covid-Impfung: Seltenheit oder Leid mit System?". www.srf.ch. 10 February 2023. Retrieved 15 July 2023.

What's odd is that more than half of the reported worldwide cases (that show symptomes described as "Post-Vac" in Germany) occurred in Germany.--Lugioner (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The German Paul Ehrlich Institute writes in its recent report:[1]

"Beim Vergleich der dargestellten absoluten Zahlen von Verdachtsmeldungen fällt auf, dass zum Zeitpunkt der Auswertung ca. 50 Prozent aller weltweit registrierten Verdachtsfälle (n=2.657) mit diesen Gesundheitsstörungen aus Deutschland berichtet wurden (n=1.452). Dabei ist zu beachten, dass in Deutschland keineswegs 50 Prozent aller Impfdosen weltweit verabreicht wurden."

(transl. with DeepL) "When comparing the absolute numbers of suspected cases presented, it is striking that at the time of the evaluation, approximately 50 percent of all suspected cases registered worldwide (n=2,657) with these health disorders were reported from Germany (n=1,452). It should be noted that by no means 50 percent of all vaccine doses worldwide were administered in Germany."--Lugioner (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: COVID-19 and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, I would keep. The story is important, it's being reported in quite serious sources, so we can't ignore it. But it doesn't fit well into a global article on the vaccination because it's almost exclusively a German-language-area phenomenon, and quite possibly nothing to do with the vaccination. We don't yet know what it means, what it is, or where the story is going, so I would leave the article as it is, until things are more clear. But with no prejudice against a future merge or move. Elemimele (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also vote to keep the article and fully agree that the subject is important and that serious sources have been quoted. It does not do to simply ignore the ongoing research into this highly sensitive and important subject. I do not consider it a merely "German" related problem. However, it is a fact that the German minister of health, dr. Lauterbach, has officially accepted the phenomenon of post-vaccination damage. More research on this subject should indeed be done with an open mind. The answer does not lie in a mere "deletion" of the article. Hanengerda (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect : Half is a content fork, and the other half is related to Germany with sources in German... so why is it being described in English Wikipedia. The "Background" section uses Template:Excerpt which in this case includes the first paragraph, omits paragraphs 2-6, and ends with the 4 bulleted points while omitting the important preamble "Documented rare serious effects include". A serious error. Put the content into COVID-19 vaccination in Germany#Above-average number of "post-vac" reports in Germany and leave Post-Vac as a redirect. Grorp (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC) Added: I will point out these phrases from the non-extracted content: "the term is only common in [3 countries]"; "no causal relationship has been found"; "post-vac has been little studied"; "it was found that [symptoms] after vaccination were no more common than would be expected based on normal incidence". In other words, this subject is a fringe theory and falls under the guidelines of WP:FRINGE. The second half of the article already exists in an article where it belongs; here it is a WP:CONTENTFORK, and WP:SYNTH by trying to associate known adverse events with the new German-regional term "post-vac" — where I'm quite sure if I checked all nine of those extracted sources, I would find not a single one of them uses the term "post-vac". This whole article is being used to push a POV. Grorp (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The excerpt template wasn't in the original Wiki-article, and it's grouped in a way that the sources of the excerpt are held apart from the sources of the "core article". The template used has the simple form {{Excerpt|COVID-19 vaccine|Adverse events|paragraphs=1}} perhaps it can be improved but the word "rare" in the preamble isn't necessary since the three bulleted points indicate themselves the incidence rates: "...one person per 250,000 to 400,000 doses ...", "...These affect about one person per 100,000...", "...0.3 to 5 cases per 100,000 persons with the highest risk in young males..."

The criticism about the non-English sources is the main part: Now the English version of the statement from May 2023 from the Paul Ehrlich Institute has been included: Statement from the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut on "Post-Vac Syndrome" after COVID-19 Vaccination (dated 19 May 2023) and instead of the translated quote (from the comprehensive safety report from June with earlier(!) data cut-off) above one now has an actual quote in English: "When comparing the absolute numbers of reports of suspected cases presented, it seems notable that at the time of the evaluation, more than 50% of all suspected cases registered worldwide (n=2,817) with these symptoms were reported from Germany (n= 1,547). It should be noted that by no means were 50% of all vaccine doses administered worldwide administered in Germany."

So now 3 of the 12 sources of the core article are in English (plus the 9 sources from the excerpt)--Lugioner (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English sources are fine, whether the article is merged or kept. We are a global encyclopaedia. Some people are interested in things that happen in non-English-speaking areas, and for those areas, often the best sources are in the local language. Elemimele (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our goal is "the sum of all human knowledge", not "the sum of knowledge known or cared about by English speakers". We have several similar situations, including the MMR vaccine and autism hoax (which really only exists in English-speaking countries; in France, they all "know" that the MMR is fine, but the Hep B vaccine causes MS, and in parts of Africa, they all "know" that the polio vaccine causes infertility). Disinformation tends to stay within language bubbles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge : The topic has clearly received attention in the German-speaking world. Regardless of if it is a "real" phenomenon or not, it is notable as a topic. The fact that it relates to German speaking countries is not a reason to say it should only exist in the German version of Wikipedia and not the English version. People who speak English and don't speak German may still be interested in learning about the topic, and there are plenty of English Wikipedia articles that relate to topics relevant to other countries/languages and not to English or English speaking countries: for example, Hikikomori. And it's not so much whether or not the adverse effects of the vaccine are the same in Germany as in the rest of the world or not that matters; it's that the concept is uniquely conceptualized in Germany that matters and makes it notable. Vontheri (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to COVID-19 vaccination in Germany. This is clearly a WP:CONTENTFORK, and definitely should not be left alone under an obscure title where pro-fringe editors can edit it unnoticed. Tercer (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge if there's anything useful. There not enough here for a separate article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:46, 20 July 2023 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Vac

Post-Vac

Navigation menu

Search