Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandemic Severity Index

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 per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pandemic Severity Index

I did a significant rewrite of this article in order to solve a POV/OR dispute with another editor, and as attempt to prove good faith. However, after doing the extensive reading on the topic, this does nt seem to be a noteworthy entity. The Index has not actually been implemented yet, or adopted on a widescale. It is essentially a PR exercise from the CDC that is in a sort of open-beta level stage of development. ZayZayEM 02:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amount of sourcing available should satisfy notability and WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Even notable failed legislation is worthy of an article, so if it's not implemented I don't think this is any different. Wl219 02:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Pandemic Severity Index was created by the US government after numerous flu pandemic simulations demonstrated the need for an easy to understand categorization of the level of response needed in case of an actual flu pandemic. Billions of dollars are being spent on flu pandemic preparation. This is an essential part of flu pandemic preparation. People who run the tests, participate in the tests, or God forbid - hear that a category 5 pandemic has been declared should be able to find out what that means from Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 04:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this really worries me. People thinking Wikipedia is a good source to use in interpreting governmental safety announcements.--ZayZayEM 04:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm more worried by the prospect of having no open-source apposite to a government safety announcement. "Kids! Stay away from that man with the long hair. He might have fleas, or ideas!" --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. A source such as USA Today is reliable. And why would a government agency's public relations effort be grounds for deletion? Canuckle 05:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Well sourced, and well written. Bad faith nomination over editing warring. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm. I wrote it. So thanks. But this is not a bad faith nomination. Please look at edit history. --ZayZayEM 07:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:CRYSTAL with flying colors (and let's hope that like another proposed government program, Mutual Assured Destruction, it is never used). --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 6 September 2007 (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.