Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulane 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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Tulane virus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is in the top 100 entries of Special:ShortPages and is unchanged in the three months this article has existed, save for the maintenance tags. GammaRadiator (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I don't see an argument for deletion here: the article is short, and has remained short, for three months -- so what? Google scholar seems to reveal all a lot of coverage. I'm also curious if all such viruses would fall under WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES? The nominator needs to remember that what we weigh here is notability -- not the current state of an article, except in extreme cases where there is plagiarism, blatant advertising, etc. We have many stubs -- and three months, here, isn't a particularly long time. Did the nominator do his necessary WP:BEFORE work: did he look at Google Scholar to see if this was a notable virus? Because the nomination statement rather gives the impression he didn't. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable coverage in scientific literature. However, not clear that "Tulane virus" is the best title, and although I think WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES should apply to viruses, SPECIESOUTCOMES is premature here. Viruses have an official database ; recognition there would satisfy SPECIESOUTCOMES, but Tulane virus isn't recognized there yet. The taxonomy is still in flux. "Tulane virus" is a proposed new species in a proposed new genus "Recovirus". As far as I can tell, the terms "Rhesus enteric calicivirus" and "Rhesus macaque recovirus" also refer to "Tulane virus", with none of these names yet satisfying SPECIESOUTCOMES (though they could be used as keywords to search for additional sources). Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not an expert, by no means, but there are indications that this virus has some sort of breakthrough and it's part of a virus family that has difficulty being cultivated but this one has been successfully cultivated. I say it passes WP:N and has plenty of WP:RS.  There is NO way that I can add to this article... not my cup of tea.  I think that we need to reach out and have an expert take a look at expanding the article.  - Pmedema (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to SPECIESOUTCOMES, I also found a review, which should solidify any notability concerns for the virus itself as well as give a source to the article. Based on my quick read of the source before bed, Tulane virus is one type of Rhesus enteric calicivirus rather than synonymous terms, so it is possible the page could just be moved to Rhesus enteric calicivirus, have two separate articles, etc without us needing to decide that here alongside the delete question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Let's hope this is the recurring "nominate a valid species stub for deletion" done with for this week :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. It appears I have been too hasty on nominating this article for deletion, in light of the above arguments. Apologies. GammaRadiator (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (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.