Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Yosemite hantavirus outbreak

2012 Yosemite hantavirus outbreak

2012 Yosemite hantavirus outbreak (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)

Minor outbreak and not historically significant. There are many small, local HPS outbreaks comparable to this one, but they don't have articles. Velayinosu (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, United States of America, and California. Velayinosu (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep Expanded a bit. Appears to have a significant impact on Hantavirus testing, has had widespread coverage in journals and seems socially, scientifically, and historically significant. Whispyhistory (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep Enough information for an event which may have further ramifications. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 15:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: It may expand with more sources, and I found more sources. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 15:55, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Of course. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: The article is clearly notable under WP. The outbreak received substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources including the CDC, WHO, peer-reviewed medical journals, and major public health reporting. It was one of the most significant U.S. hantavirus outbreaks since the 1993 Four Corners outbreak and resulted in changes to public health surveillance; importantly, testing practices; and National Park Service procedures.

Furthermore, the topic has enduring historical and medical significance beyond routine news coverage. Multiple independent sources analyze the outbreak’s epidemiology, incubation period, rodent exposure mechanisms and broader public health impact years after the event. The article is also well sourced overall, even if additional inline citations could still improve some sections. Any sourcing or style concerns are obviously issues for cleanup, not deletion, of course.

In summary, as a medical professional, I believe this outbreak has clear encyclopedic value due to its documented epidemiological significance, public health response and lasting relevance in the medical literature on hantavirus pulmonary syndrome. Feel free to contact if any of this requires clarification. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep I would agree that there should be some expansion and maybe some cleanup, but I don't think an outright deletion is needed. AUTTPEditor (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly in light of the unusually explosive recent news this is an important topic. I came here to refresh my memory, and I am about to do some editing LaurentianShield (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• Strong keep This article is now expanded with more sources. So keep of course. --VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 02:53, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• Clear keep. Widespread coverage in various medical journals. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep coverage shows significance. Likeanechointheforest (talk)

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.