- 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 delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
The SARS Network
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The SARS Network ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This entire article might be original research. The article is not written in an encyclopedic way but more like an essay. It uses some sources that only tangentially relate to the subject and much of the text seems to be unsourced. Some parts that are sourced seem to be plagiarized such as the sentences "Despite this estimate..." and "Instead, initial seeding...". The user who wrote the article did so in May 2014 and has not done anything else. This article was briefly discussed at the Medicine WikiProject here, where two other users believed it was original research and a coatrack article. When searching for "SARS network", most results pertain to networks of people or organizations that collaborated to study or respond to SARS and secondarily to some stuff involving music. Velayinosu ( talk) 01:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu ( talk) 01:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be an essay with substantial copy-and-pasting from its sources. The sentences mentioned in the nomination were lifted from here; "One of the striking features..." was lifted from here. So was the rest of the paragraph after "patients are infectious only after they exhibit symptoms". Overall, the article starts with vague generalities about network theory and segues into plagiarism. Nor is the choice of title very good. The term "SARS network" might better refer to the network of people who worked to identify its source (see, e.g., this Science story from 2003). But even that sense is rare. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:33, 27 July 2021 (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.
- 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 delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
The SARS Network
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The SARS Network ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This entire article might be original research. The article is not written in an encyclopedic way but more like an essay. It uses some sources that only tangentially relate to the subject and much of the text seems to be unsourced. Some parts that are sourced seem to be plagiarized such as the sentences "Despite this estimate..." and "Instead, initial seeding...". The user who wrote the article did so in May 2014 and has not done anything else. This article was briefly discussed at the Medicine WikiProject here, where two other users believed it was original research and a coatrack article. When searching for "SARS network", most results pertain to networks of people or organizations that collaborated to study or respond to SARS and secondarily to some stuff involving music. Velayinosu ( talk) 01:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu ( talk) 01:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be an essay with substantial copy-and-pasting from its sources. The sentences mentioned in the nomination were lifted from here; "One of the striking features..." was lifted from here. So was the rest of the paragraph after "patients are infectious only after they exhibit symptoms". Overall, the article starts with vague generalities about network theory and segues into plagiarism. Nor is the choice of title very good. The term "SARS network" might better refer to the network of people who worked to identify its source (see, e.g., this Science story from 2003). But even that sense is rare. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:33, 27 July 2021 (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.