Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antigenic Rift

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antigenic Rift

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

Possible hoax. Although the person who coined this term exists, my searches found nothing about the subject (Google suggests the similar term Antigenic drift instead). The given source has no mention of this term. Adam9007 (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not exactly a hoax, but probably a misunderstanding, for antigenic shift, large changes in the surface antigens of viruses,that permit them to cross species barriers -- see the CDC report "How the Flu Virus Can Change: “Drift” and “Shift”" [1]. ("antigenic drift" is a term for small changes, as between different strains of flu viruses. The reported author of the phrase Robert Siegel (virologist) is a Professor (teaching) at Stanford, who has only published 2 papers in his entire career, neither of them on this topic and neither of them notable. He is not one of the authors of the paper cited here -- a rather famous paper, btw, cited over 700 times in Google Scholar, though not by him. He presumably used the phrase antigenic shift in a lecture, and the student taking notes misunderstood. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur, I asked DGG for his familiar analysis here as I questioned its factualness, but it's quite clear, regardless, that there's no substance for a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No basis for an article, misunderstanding likely; thanks DGG for the convincing analysis.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete nothing here. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably just a misspelling or -understanding. — Sam Sailor 15:19, 20 December 2016 (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.