Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of latent human viral infections

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 merge to Virus latency. Consensus is for a merge, but as three of the four viruses listed here are already mentioned in the prose of the target article, merging in list form seems pointless. Any editor wishing to do so should feel free to mention the fourth (Cytomegalovirus) there. Michig (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of latent human viral infections

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

Poorly-maintained, uninformative. ~~Using categories would be a better solution.~~ Scray (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Using categories would be a better solution". Why? There's nothing to stop Wikipedia having both (see Wikipedia:CLT). A list like this could incorporate information such as typical latency periods, which a category cannot. And the category of latent viruses will be fuzzy at the edges, which a list/table can explain but a category cannot. If you were to argue that the list is very small and could be merged with Virus latency that might be a stronger argument, but maybe there are more that could be added. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great feedback, and I only just learned of the prohibition against invoking categories in list deletion discussions. Thanks! -- Scray (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not against this per se - but a list with ~~three~~ four known examples it not very useful. What do others think? Bearian (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to virus latency purely for size reasons. If it gains enough entries, it can be split back off again. postdlf (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above - it would appear that all of the entries except Cytomegalovirus are discussed within the text of virus latency already anyway. Noir (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree that merger as suggested would be better than keeping. -- Scray (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC) (proposer)[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.