Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis virus


 * 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   delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis virus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about a non-existent virus, which appears to be giving deliberately incorrect information. Acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis has been shown to be caused by Enterovirus 70 and Coxsackievirus A24, but this article purports to discuss a third causative virus, despite the fact that no source lists such a third cause. It has been suggested that this article should be redirected to acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis but two editors (myself and the article's original author) disagree with this redirect, for diametrically opposite reasons: I because I don't believe this is a valid redirect, because the existence of the redirect still implies the existence of a virus by this name; he because he refuses to let go of the validity of this article (see this reply to my query on his user talk page). WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete (if there is no consensus to redirect) - given what the sources say, summarised accurately by WikiDan61 above, the article would seem to almost be a work of fiction. Acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis is a symptom/condition caused by one of two viruses, possibly more. It is not a virus in and of itself. Right?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Question&mdash;This 1974 article treats the AHC virus as a distinct entity, but by 1975 this article had made the enterovirus 70 association. Trawling through google scholar I'm seeing a few other cites that would support the hypothesis that, due to a more precise identification, the "AHC virus" name started to be supplemented by "enterovirus 70" around that time.  Is that an accurate (albeit superficial) reading of the literature?  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It sounds like you've drawn the correct conclusion. I haven't reviewed the literature as extensively as that, nor am I a medical expert to make the distinction, but I do know that WP:MEDRS generally prefers recent articles to older ones. Where recent articles contradict older ones (with a predominance of recent articles disagreeing with the older ones), we can presume that the knowledge basis has progressed and that the older article is no longer valid.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research or alternatively misunderstood research, with unsupported conclusions. --Bejnar (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis and merge any verifiable material. The fact that the medical profession no longer believes this is a single virus is not cause for eliminating it entirely from Wikipedia.  What should happen is that the acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis article should explain the historical medical thinking and how and when that changed.  It is a valid redirect, the term was once used and it is perfectly possible that a reader could come across it and look it up. SpinningSpark 11:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This virus doesn't exist so the article or a redirect have no value. If someone wants to incorporate outdated info about this into the correct article go ahead but this is a delete not a redirect. Szzuk (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2014 (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.