Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beet yellow net 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 no consensus. Sandstein 14:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beet yellow net virus edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This virus seems to have very little notability because it has never been classified as a species by the ICTV and searching for it on PubMed, PMC, and GenBank returns zero results. Velayinosu (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is an archived link to ICTV in the external links section, where it is listed as a species. Surely this must be a synonym of something? Plantdrew (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I searched for whether this virus was a species, I used the search box on the ICTV's taxonomy page[1]. I've also checked a few of the master species lists and couldn't find anything. I spent about two hours just now trying to figure out if Beet yellow net virus was a synonym of another virus but just hit dead ends. It's possible that these two viruses (Beet yellow net virus and Millet red leaf virus) are synonyms of other viruses, but they may just be extremely unimportant. Velayinosu (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google scholar yields 71 results. [2]. Many of them refer to "sugar beet yellow net virus". This is puzzling. Watching the page. Cinadon36 08:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll be the first to admit I don't know a lot about virus databases but https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/BYNV00 and https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/List_of_beet_diseases.html and https://www.prevalentviruses.org/virus.cfm and http://www.virology.net/big_virology/bvviruslist.html have this as well as the google scholar hits mentioned above. If we find more about the naming or other details we can update accordingly but based on what we have found so far this seems to be widely described in the literature. Kingdon (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Sugar Beet yellow net virus" matching "Beet yellow net virus" though? If so, case is solved, we should keep the article. If not, there 's room for debate. Cinadon36 07:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is a synonym of "Sugar beet yellow net virus", that wouldn't mean it should be kept since "Sugar beet yellow net virus" likewise has never been recognized as a species by the ICTV and is not found via GenBank. Those two things along with the relative lack of information and research about the virus should probably preclude it from having an article. Velayinosu (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not finding a virus via GenBank shouldn't be an issue. Plant virology was a valid field before widespread sequencing. The ICTVdB entry for this virus contains references between 1948 and 1988, but mostly in the first decade of that period, when no one was sequencing anything. We can't automatically write off the whole of pre-sequencing plant pathology as irrelevant. On the other hand, this may not be a terribly notable virus. I have no idea of WP's guidelines on notability of a virus! Your average beet virus doesn't get its mugshot in a good newspaper terribly often. Elemimele (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this article [3]. We also have a related Rubus yellow net virus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rubus yellow net virus is significantly more notable though since searching for it returns 6 results on PubMed, 19 on PMC, 33 on GenBank, 241 on Google Scholar, and it is recognized as a species by the ICTV. Velayinosu (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, true, but having more publications about it [4], I think it could be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Beet necrotic yellow vein virus is a different virus. Having Beet yellow net virus in relatively recent (1995) reviews of viruses (not 1960s), like this ref [5] or in books like here (this is 2011) seem to be a proof this is valid virus/subject. Also see the list of Google scholar hits link provided by someone else above. My very best wishes (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think these other users may have failed to recognize that many of the google scholar hits they describe are actually hits for "Beet necrotic yellow vein virus," which is very well described in the literature and has hundreds of citations. "Beet yellow net virus," however, has only 3 unique hits since 2000 on google scholar and web of science. There are a lot of translations and reprints of old papers. This virus appears to have been discovered in 1948 or so, studied a fair amount back then into the 60s, and then forgotten into the background. There's been maybe one valid reference in 1997 a plant pathology study in 2002, and finally a very low impact agriculture journal published this year in what I think might be Poland or Lithuania. But I cannot find much coverage outside of that. A compelling case for inclusion this does not make.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel a bit out of my depth here. Even if I were to read the literature more, I don't think I'd easily be able to say whether the virus studied in the 50s and 60s could be matched to a virus which is more well-understood using modern techniques (for example, has been sequenced) and can be found in recently published literature (or whether there is reason to think it is a readily identifiable virus which could be sequenced and otherwise researched if anyone took the effort to do so; or whether samples exist in freezers which might help clarify which virus is which). According to http://www.virology.net/big_virology/bvviruslist.html , https://www.prevalentviruses.org/virus.cfm , https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/List_of_beet_diseases.html , and https://gd.eppo.int/ Beet necrotic yellow vein virus is a Furovirus or Benyvirus but Beet yellow net virus is a Luteovirus. All four sites have both Beet necrotic yellow vein virus and Beet yellow net virus separately, but I'm less sure whether I'm drawing the right conclusions from noticing that. If it is a lightly studied virus but there is no particular reason to doubt that it is distinct, I guess I'd conclude keep but I don't want to sound overconfident based on some sources which I may or may not really understand. Kingdon (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to "I have no idea of WP's guidelines on notability of a virus", I don't see anything specific to viruses at WP:SNG so we're probably back to WP:GNG which on the face of it would appear to be satisfied by the journal articles from the 50s and 60s (in light of WP:NTEMP). (Those are all sections of WP:N which isn't especially long). I'm not sure those links fully answer the question of what to do with this article, but perhaps they answer what notability is? Kingdon (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having been written about in a journal article by itself should not automatically make a virus notable enough for an article. There are too many viruses in existence for that to be reasonable or feasible, and it doesn't acknowledge differences in publication type. In this case, it ignores the broader context of this virus having significantly lower notability than what the Virus WikiProject generally considers to be low notability (like the previously mentioned Rubus yellow net virus). If it is unclear whether this virus meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then more clear guidelines on which viruses can have articles can be created. Velayinosu (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2021 (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.