Talk:Shortage of medical ventilators during COVID-19 pandemic
Add topicDeletion appeal posted
[edit source]I posted appeal of deletion. Seems like a reasonable topic to cover. There are adequate sources. Drakeula (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but the article was created in a sub-par format all the way back in January and nothing has been done to bring it up to standard since then. You are welcome to clean it up yourself (Template:ProductPreload would appear to be the best guideline to follow in this case), otherwise it will be deleted. — Sojourna (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Move back to being a product page
[edit source]This started as a product page about medical ventilator. It was recently changed to be an incident page specifically about shortage of medical ventilators during the COVID pandemic. I think it would be better to move it back to being a product page, where it can address ongoing issues, as well as specific issue during early days of COVID.
As one repair technician said "This is an issue that we face each day, whether or not there is a crisis at the time"
If this page gets too big, with a lot of covid specific material and a bunch of non-covid material, then creating incident page would be fine. Until then I think moving it back to be a product page makes it easier to find and use and edit.
I figured made sense to open discussion on this to see what other editors think. If nobody responds in a while I will move it back to product. Thanks. (@Beanie Bo) Drakeula (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- I've been discussing this article with the admin, Keith. Since this topic is somewhat complex and unique, we've decided to rework it by narrowing the focus on how the lack of right-to-repair may have exacerbated the shortage of ventilators. An incident article is the best way to approach this while giving due weight to the many factors involved (general COVID context, multiple companies at fault, aggregate statistics, etc). On the other hand, product articles have too much constraint on how the information is conveyed, and also require looking at medical ventilators as a general product instead of focusing solely on the context of COVID.
- I will be doing the heavy work of restructuring the article to fit within scope as how myself and the other moderators discussed it should be. I saved the sources on the discussion tab of my user page, as well as added many new ones I've found. A deletion notice had been added recently, and I, as a moderator, removed it because it's an important article that absolutely needs to stay. Though it needs to be reworked extensively and to the highest standards CRW has to offer. I've committed to doing most of the work in that regard as it was the only way to save it from deletion. Beanie Bo (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Beanie Bo Thanks.
- Where is the discussion? Can you post a link to it here, so that other editors can better understand what is happening? (I am still trying to figure out where things are, so it would also help me to know where to discuss questions like this.)
- Were medical ventilators the only products so impacted? The news coverage that I saw at the time just talked about ventilators. However, other sources have mentioned other equipment as well.
- How do we handle developments after the COVID surge? Can incident articles to cover the ongoing situation/subsequent developments as well?
- The other wikis I have worked on have a no page "ownership" policy, where everybody is welcome to contribute to any article. I just realized that I assumed the same applied here, but I see nothing about it in the policies. How is that handled here? (A quick answer, like a link to the relevant help/policy page, or where to ask this question would be fine.)
- My assumption is part of why I tend to move link dumps to the talk page of an article (so anybody can use them, and a reader might find them while the article is still rough).
- Glad to hear somebody is taking this on. I am interested in med tech, and am willing to help as I can, but at the moment I am mostly focused on AI.
- Drakeula (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion happened in a private moderators' chat on Discord, but I can tell you for transparency purposes:
- I posted the article there and asked if it should be a theme article or incident article, since it clearly does not fit the requirements of a product page. Admin Keith said, "I think an incident would make sense. Given that it was ventilators and covid and it was all pretty big news, are there not a decent number of sources on it out there?" Then we spoke more about the issues with specific sources, then I said "Thats why one master article is in order, unfortunately. The reports are all consolidated. I guess that's just how the industry is." Then Keith said, "Yeah, I think a master incident article makes the most sense. Can customise the incident format a bit to add any extra sections that are neccesary, e.g. comanpies with no-repair clauses."
- Now to answer your question, "How do we handle developments after the COVID surge? Can incident articles to cover the ongoing situation/subsequent developments as well?"
- The guidelines are not too rigid because these things have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. That's the only way to fairly judge since not all situations are the same. Though I would speculate that since this article is the only one of it's nature, and any potential updates may not warrant its own page, then simply adding a section or subsection onto this page should be acceptable.
- As for ownership policy, I don't believe there is anything specified in this wiki's policy. However, as a moderator, my job is to make sure all articles fit within a quality standard - whether that means adding Incomplete notices when needed, or making extensive edits like I tend to do here. I think my contributions so far help showcase my editing skills, and even if it isn't perfect and still requires further editing from others, the structure, details, and tone all fit within what CRW is looking for. See Moderator Guidelines.
- This article was written back in January which is nine months ago at this point, and looks no better than a stub. So while I don't intend to "own" the article, in this instance, I would like to have the ability to restructure the article to fit within the standards and quality that CRW expects.
- Thank you. Beanie Bo (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. I appreciate the background.
- I asked about the ownership thing because I worries I might unintentionally be stepping on people's toes if they do things differently here than at other wikis. I didn't mean it as criticism of you or anybody. Appreciate the work you do. Drakeula (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's no problem at all. It's helpful to have these conversations so that everyone is on the same page. It's all good Beanie Bo (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Former content and possible sources
[edit source]During the COVID crisis, manufacturers like General Electric, Dräger, Steris, locked down the supply of spare parts, software and repair manuals behind expensive certifications for technicians, and threaten
https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1816&context=shlr
The above was in the article, was deleted but covers some issues that are not currently covered in the text. Also a list of sources to help with article improvement. (I didn't write any of this, and haven't checked all the sources. The ones I have looked at look useful.)