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. We're going to keep this one for the time being. Perhaps it can be improved. Take a look at improvement and other options before we renominate. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Porcine adenovirus[edit]

Porcine adenovirus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Taxon was split in 1981. Article unsourced except a link to another wiki. The taxon is a grade and not a clade. There is no clear notability as a historical taxon either. --Nessie (📥) 19:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned all over the web, in books, and in scholarly journals. Instead of deleting the article, please contact and correct the scientists first, then redirect this article to the correct taxonomy. Grade/clade? Are you going after the other grades? That doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia rule, "no grades allowed."

Added a reference, took less time than your AFD post. --73.189.86.70 (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"it" is not an it, it's a they. They are multiple viruses, related, but not one solid group. If we want to use the current taxonomy, we create Porcine mastadenovirus A, Porcine mastadenovirus B, and possibly Porcine mastadenovirus C; and the best Porcine adenovirus can hope for is a disambiguation page. This is really a case of Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. --Nessie (📥) 14:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're now saying they do belong in Wikipedia, which detracts from your AFD. Just not in this form? Fix it. There's no shame in leaving an error in the edit history. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:4E (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s like saying I want to keep an article called red flowers because i think Hibiscus and Rose should stay. --Nessie (📥) 19:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. Meanwhile, back to this article. It is sourced, it's a notable topic. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:16 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Nessie (📥) 20:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in some form. Could be a disambiguation page if articles on the species are written, or could be a redirect to Adenoviridae#Animals. Plantdrew (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, in some form. I fail to see how readers are served by turning this into a redlink. I'd oppose a redirect to Adenoviridae; the material in Adenoviridae on non-human viruses is very poor. No reason this should not talk about adenoviruses of pigs in general; we have lots of examples of human viruses that do this. Or if subarticles are created, it could become a disambiguation. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.