Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human flu

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. -- RG ² 02:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human flu

Seems to me that this page is redundant -- all content is covered by Influenza or by other pages in Category:Influenza. Yeah, I know that Google returns 84 gazillion hits for a search of "human flu", but I'll bet that most of those are CDC or NIH which is (IMO) awful for consistent clarity. —G716 <^T·_C> 02:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 02:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary article, delete and redirect to Influenza. Terraxos 03:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] WAS 4.250 05:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to influenza for now. I think there's a potential article here given that only a subset of influenza strains affect humans, but to have an article we need some discussion of that point and referencing of identified ones. Some of that is in influenza now but there no overwhelming reason it has to be there specifically. --Dhartung | Talk 05:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote change to keep based on Heymann standard of article improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 22:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete and redirect to influenza, completely redundant. All material in this stub is already covered in the influenza article. Keep, much improved. Tim Vickers 07:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps create Influenza#Human and change these links on these pages to Influenza#Human? WAS 4.250 16:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per Dhartung. Tiddly-Tom 11:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is used on these pages to mean the subset of Orthomyxoviridae that create influenza in humans and are endemic in humans. Do you really want to replace "human flu" with "the subset of Orthomyxoviridae that create influenza in humans and are endemic in humans" everywhere it occurs? Also it serves to contrast with horse flu, pig flu, dog flu, cat flu, and bird flu. Each type of flu, named after what it is endemic in, has unique aspects to it. The flu article is very human-centric, but it is not the human flu article. Perhaps much of flu should be merged into this article? WAS 4.250 15:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now fleshed out the article. Mostly using stuff I wrote on five other articles. Nothing from flu. WAS 4.250 16:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nice work Tiddly-Tom 08:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a good article - notable per Ghits, fixed per WP:HEY, and well-sourced. Bearian 22:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - flu articles are a complete mess, but a seperate page for Human flu, to contrast with otehr species-specific flu is a good idea. It will allow the main Influenza page to be less homo-centric--ZayZayEM 23:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe rename it "Human Influenza" and do a redirect at Human Flu. Mbisanz 20:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Informative encyclopedic article. But maybe not rename. Ever heard anyone say "oh hell, I think I'm getting the influenza!"? Moriori 22:14, 29 October 2007 (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.