- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Hervotype (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This term is only used in two primary sources, one in 2009 (the cited source) and one in 2011.[1] Both have the same lead author. This Wikipedia article was made shortly after the publication of the first source and seems to have been made by the lead author of the two papers, possibly to make the term more widespread. Noticeably, other researchers of human endogenous retroviruses do not appear to use this term, so overall it probably fails WP:GNG. Velayinosu (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete I also found that the only use of the word "hervotype" is in these two studies with the same lead author, which falls short of the multiple secondary sources required by the general notability guideline. Hervotypes are likely non-notable at this time. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 02:04, 2 March 2025 (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.