Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild-type 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 redirect to wild type. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wild-type virus
Wild-type simply refers to the most common strain of an organism in existence, free from artificially induced mutations. It is nonsense to say that wild-type is the antithesis of antiviral resistance, since the latter is a phenomenon and the former a classification. While the article does contain some correct information, I feel that this request would better be served by redirecting to either antiviral drug or antiretroviral drug. Nominated for deletion. Angio 07:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't know much about the topic, but believe that the suggested redirects are not a good idea. In general, X should only redirect to Y if X is covered by the topics dealt with in article Y. That is not the case here. It may be better to remove the incorrect information and leave a stub to be expanded by knowledgeable editors. There are plenty of Google hits on this as a search term. --Lambiam Talk 10:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If the article is currently incorrect but a notable topic then it should just be rewritten. A redirect would be fine too (with the correct content covered in the redirect targets, as Lambiam says).  Since there is no reason to hide the current content of the page, neither of these require an AFD :).  If you wish to rewrite or redirect, just reply on this page that you wish to withdraw the AFD, and an admin will close it.  —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 11:26Z 


 * The reason that "wild-type virus" will pull up hits on Google is that wild-type is an adjectival phrase used to describe any organism that has not been tinkered with by scientists or is not otherwise mutated. Having an article for "wild-type virus" is analogous to having an article for "red car" or "fast airplane." If you don't approve of my redirect suggestion, I will expand the wild-type stub and redirect to that. Angio 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost a half of the hits also reference HIV or AIDS therapy, so something is going on there. You also get more hits for "Little Red Corvette" than you would expect from the juxtaposition of "little red" and "Corvette". --Lambiam Talk 07:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because "Little Red Corvette" happened to be used by Prince for an album title. I think the analogy is somewhat ill-considered, because the phrase "wild-type virus" carries no denotative or connotative meaning beyond the sum of the meanings of its two parts. In my own opinion, which I believe to be substantially qualified by experience beyond the layman's, this is a useless and misleading article. Those who want to know what "wild-type virus" means should, upon finding there to be no article by that name, break the phrase into its two logical components. They will be much better served by doing so. Please redirect wild-type virus to wild-type. Angio 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The article should be edited per some of the comments. --HResearcher 10:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Wild-type. The term "wild-type" is used to describe any non-engineered species, and does not generally have a specific meaning with respect to antibiotic resistance as far as I am aware.  The page as written puts an antibiotic-resistance spin on the definiton which is somewhat interesting, but I don't think it is a good general description of a wild-type virus.  bikeable (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect to Wild type. As pointed out above, wild type viruses do not have any paticular significance or association with drug therapy. Viridae Talk 00:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Wild-type per the above. -AED 00:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wild type per Angio's arguments. Redirecting to antiviral drug or the like would be awkward because the term has use outside of drug development and is not specifically related to antivirals. The article as it stands has a ton of misleading "information". Opabinia regalis 03:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. Sorry Guy 01:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article itself isn't particularly useful, but there is abundant published information about wild-type viruses with some distinctions from the wild type in other organisms, and the topic is highly important in the context of antiviral drugs, especially HIV therapy. The current wild type article is a very brief definition and doesn't seem suitable as a hook for hanging technical information regarding a single group. Espresso Addict 01:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how (or give a reference to something explaining how) the topic is highly important in the context of antiviral drugs? That appears to be the very issue that is contested in this AfD discussion. --Lambiam Talk 09:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's an accessible discussion relating to HIV in a review by Buss & Cammack for Antiviral Therapy (2000) 6(1): 1-7 available in pdf here: -- see particularly the subheading 'Complexities in extrapolating from in vitro to in vivo' Espresso Addict 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't want to labour the point here, but the mere fact that there are two distinct definitions of 'wild-type virus' being used in this discussion (ie, 'non-engineered' & 'pre-therapy') suggests that there's scope for an article. Espresso Addict 21:44, 16 August 2006 (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.