Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 novel bunyavirus outbreak


 * 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. Consensus is now clear. A potential rename is a discussion for another noticeboard. BD2412 T 00:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 novel bunyavirus outbreak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOTNEWS this is a potentially emerging outbreak but reliable sources are not available. No medical references are provided and it's not clear that this is notable or even considered an outbreak or isolated cases of illness. If it is a notable outbreak it will be reported rapidly by the medical press. We can wait for that. There are several claims in the article that absolutely require MEDRS. It is disappointing this article was created prior to reliable sources confirming the reports such as the Chinese CDC or the WHO PainProf (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PainProf (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  17:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is on the verge of development and I propose this title to be changed as 2020 novel Tick-borne virus outbreak. Abishe (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DRAFTIFY or Delete. The story may develop into something that should have an article, or it may not. At present, the WP:LEAD outright states that this is based on unverified media reports. This obviously needs to be based on WP:MEDRS for all the medical claims, and right now these seem to simply not exist. TompaDompa (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure I edited to state unverified reports, since I couldn't find evidence of official verification and the articles themselves do not cite inherently reliable sources. PainProf (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. The point still stands that it's too early for this to have an article when there are no WP:MEDRS for what is very clearly a medical article, and since we don't even know if there ever will be any it is not appropriate to keep this in mainspace while waiting for the sources to materialize. TompaDompa (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record: My initial comment was made when the article looked . Now, it looks . As a result, the reasons for my assessment that this should be deleted have changed somewhat (I made some of the edits between those versions, but that has no impact on this). Most importantly, edit introduced the claim that this outbreak is caused by SFTS virus, which is a claim that categorically requires WP:MEDRS. Without that, this entire article is a massive WP:SYNTH violation. We absolutely cannot combine sources about the SFTS virus with sources about this outbreak without WP:MEDRS linking the two. TompaDompa (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge into Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome which seems to be a more general and longer account of the matter. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This suggestion is a non-starter unless WP:MEDRS confirm that the two articles do indeed deal with the same topic. There is a great risk of unintentional WP:SYNTH by assuming these two things to be one and the same. TompaDompa (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that is synthesis not suggested by reliable sources, I would like to see an outbreak report by the WHO or the Chinese CDC stating confirmation of that "link" by molecular testing. I think someone added this because they were annoyed by how much some of the media reports were butchering the nomenclature (a good indication of their unreliability). Its annoying that we can't speedily draftify medical articles like this that don't cite one MEDRS but make bold claims. PainProf (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Regardless of whether they prove the same, I think it has become clear that a separate article is justified for the outbreak.  DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The original source is a tabloid... All of the reports are based off this. I refer you to our previous discussion of a 2020 outbreak of plague. In the age of coronavirus these outbreaks are being hyped up. Infections of tick viruses are common at this time of year. This journalism is immoral tabloid style at its worst. These stories and this page spread unnecessary fear about an illness that has not been confirmed by any reliable source. We should not be indulging these hacks. Surely the one lesson of the coronavirus should be to trust scientific organisations rather than the media. By not using reliable medical sources we contribute to misinformation. PainProf (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Better that we start a page like this, and then decide it was unjustified, in which case we can redirect, than miss something in an area where we are generaly considered the best and most rapid source in theworld,  DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep and rename to 2020 SFTS virus outbreak, this has been confirmed to be the SFTS virus and is not a novel virus. This article has multiple sources which states an outbreak has infected at least 60 people, killed 7 and is ongoing in East China.  The article note (translation error may occur)s: After the coronavirus epidemic in China, the panic of “bunya virus” has now started. In China, Jiangsu province, a total of 37 people were diagnosed with a disease caused by the new bunia virus spread by ticks.
 * Delete – we can't write an article without reliable sources. If reliable sources are found, we can reconsider. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

A total of 37 people in Jiangsu province have been diagnosed this year with SFTS (Severe Fever Thrombocytopenia Syndrome), a disease caused by the new tick virus spread by ticks. It was reported that 23 infected people in Anhui province were also detected. Based on the cases, experts warned that the virus can be transmitted from blood to animal and person to person.

  The article notes: A new infectious disease caused by a tick-borne virus has killed seven people and infected 60 others in China, official media here reported on Wednesday, warning about the possibility of its human-to-human transmission. More than 37 people in East China’s Jiangsu Province contracted with the SFTS Virus in the first half of the year. Later, 23 people were found to have been infected in East China’s Anhui province, state-run Global Times quoted media reports.

A woman from Nanjing, capital of Jiangsu, who suffered from the virus showed onset of symptoms such as fever, coughing. Doctors found a decline of leukocyte, blood platelet inside of her body. After a month of treatment, she was discharged from the hospital. At least seven people have died in Anhui and East China’s Zhejiang province due to the virus, the report said.

SFTS Virus is not a new virus. China has isolated pathogen of the virus in 2011, and it belongs to the Bunyavirus category.   The article notes: As governments across the world continue to grapple with the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, China — where cases of the deadly infection were first reported — is now facing a new health threat. A disease called Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (SFTS), caused by a tick-borne virus, has killed seven and infected at least 60, setting off alarm bells among health officials in the country.

A large number of the cases reported were concentrated in East China’s Jiangsu and Anhui provinces, local media reported. While more than 37 people were diagnosed with SFTS in Jiangsu in the early months of 2020, 23 were later found to be infected in Anhui.   The article notes: A deadly virus has re-emerged in China, infecting more than 60 people and killing seven. The highly pathogenic, tick-borne novel bunyavirus can lead to thrombocytopenia syndrome. It causes a viral haemorrhagic fever and has re-emerged in rural areas of China.

CNA reports that a 65-year-old tea farmer in China’s Jiangsu province recently fell ill with a fever of 40C and a repetitive cough. Beijing-backed Global Times reported 37 people had been diagnosed with thrombocytopenia in the Jiangsu province.   The article notes: "Sheng Jifang, an expert on the novel bunya virus, told the Global Times a patient who had died three years ago later infected 16 people that had contact with the patient's body."  The article notes: A deadly tick-borne virus has reemerged in China, with experts warning it can be transmitted from human to human.According to the state-backed newspaper the Global Times, 37 people in the Jiangsu Province have been diagnosed with Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (SFTS) so far this year. SFTS is a disease caused by bunyavirus.

Sheng Jifang, an infectious disease expert with the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, told the newspaper the virus can be spread by ticks and infected animals, and by people via blood, wounds and the respiratory tract. </li> </ol> There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow this epidemic to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The first three sources are CNN and The Indian Express which are listed on Reliable sources/Perennial sources as reliable. They mention Sheng Jifang as "A doctor from the first affiliated hospital under Zhejiang University, said that the possibility of human-to-human transmission could not be excluded; patients can pass the virus to others via blood or mucous." Sheng Jifang has multiple publication on the National Center for Biotechnology Information such as Erratum to: Transmission risk of patients with COVID-19 meeting discharge criteria should be interpreted with caution and Factors Associated With Prolonged Viral RNA Shedding in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 these are not about the SFTS virus, but confirm he is a medical expert of infectious diseases.

The second two are sources should pass WP:RS if listed on sources/perennial as they are subjected to peer review. The last source is a more recent source from Newsweek, also listed on perennial sources as reliable. Historically, epidemics which don't cause death are notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. With at least 60 people infected and 7 deaths this is certainly notable and independent of the previous outbreak of Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome which occured in 2009 and multiple other times until 2017. Far more people were infected this time and died. In comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic, that article was notable by 8 January 2020 when it was in this shape. There were less than 60 confirmed infections of COVID at that time. WP:MEDRS sources did not exist due to the early development of the epidemic and MEDRS is not necessary when covering an ongoing outbreak. The same is going on now, and this epidemic is certainly independently notable of previous occurance of SFTS. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 17:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Source one in that article is indisputably MEDRS, an outbreak report from the World health organisation ... which is when it should be created, the media reports have already died down, and none of these sources meet our standards for medical articles. There is no reliable information linking the outbreaks, at least one reliable medical source is required. PainProf (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, it has not been confirmed by any source we consider reliable that this disease is this virus, we don't use the popular press for this kind of thing. They often make mistakes, here there are so many mistakes it is clear the sources are unreliable. The Chinese CDC and the WHO have a good reputation for quickly publishing outbreak reports, for COVID our article was created after the WHO confirmed China's report on Jan 5th, note how accurate and precise a WHO outbreak notification is compared to media reports. Moreover, this was after confirmation by the Wuhan municipal health authority. I see no equivalents here. It's essentially, some doctor says which we have never considered reliable. PainProf (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * These sources are listed on Reliable sources/Perennial sources so reliability has already been decided in extensive discussions. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 18:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes they are reliable in some contexts, however for an entirely medical article they are not reliable per WP:MEDRS which is a well established policy that applies clearly here. Considering the only non MEDRS claim we can make is that there are reports of an outbreak, there doesn't seem to be much of an article. Also the reports all parrot the Global times which is a tabloid newspaper....PainProf (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not an entirely medical article, the one source regarding symptoms and transmission is attributed to Dr. Sheng Jifang. I had noted that the COVID pandemic had an article prior to any deaths or having even 60 infections. This article does not require MEDRS it is about an ongoing outbreak. There are MEDRS sources regarding this virus, and  all are PubMed or NCBI sources which pass WP:MEDRS and describe the disease and virus. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 18:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to show they are the same virus, this is exactly why I'm requesting MEDRS for the outbreak, an unreliably sourced statement could easily be incorrect here. It is not confirmed that this is STFS virus until a reputable medical source confirms it. They do this using molecular testing, in an outbreak this is done rapidly, and we would have that information. I don't trust the tabloid media to correctly identify a virus and it is Synth for you to do so. As you can clearly see from the WHO, they routinely issue outbreak reports, but have issued none for this. The only sources that picked it up are marginal, and all based off a source that we shouldn't trust. As you have demonstrated, the person sourced to is not in fact a bunyavirus expert. The name was butchered in many of the reports and no reliable medical authorities have confirmed an outbreak. This page absolutely requires MEDRS before you make a page and for each statement. Please look at our discretionary sanctions for COVID again. PainProf (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I posted above? The onus is on me and I've proved it, now the onus is on you to prove it is not the same virus. I've listed reliable sources which are valid for proving the notability of this outbreak. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 18:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, you do not seem to understand the difference between WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. The latter is way stricter than the former. The assertion that this is the same virus is a medical claim, and as such requires WP:MEDRS. TompaDompa (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. It might be merged to Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome, but the sources above by Valoem show this is probably good as a standalone page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Of note after the initial media frenzy in generally unreliable sources, largely tabloids, this story has been completely forgotten already. Of further note a reliable sources entry seems likely to close as deprecation for the source that originated this news - partly because it is seen as unreliable even in China. I further note that the story was never carried by more respectable Chinese outlets, was never confirmed by Chinese authorities or the World health organisation suggesting indeed that this was simply unsubstantiated speculation. PainProf (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep seems there are enough coverage and enough scope to expand. Nomian (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for now there seems to be coverage of the event, and soon enough we can see if it did not amount to anything. Wm335td (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.