Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Happy" Virus


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"Happy" Virus
Somehow, this article does not seem to fit in with the rest of the encyclopedia. It reads sort of like an editorial, an informative report. Is this virus notable? HappyCamper 15:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; Personal essay/research, or else a hoax. &mdash; RJH 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; personal experiance, not relivent in the manor presented Betacommand 16:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, if for no other reason than "The "Happy" Virus was found by this author on February 25, 2006." Postdlf 16:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. A Happy virus does exist, but it's a seven-year-old virus that most systems are innoculated against unless you aren't running an antivirus program at all.  Likely this is an attempt to create an "authorative" site to reference for a virus hoax.--み使い Mitsukai 16:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Makes me want to start a new category; "either nothing or something". Its such a mishmash I can't make head nor tail of it. It's certainly not encyclopedic, and has a good chance of being a hoax. Hynca-Hooley 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, probable hoax, not WP:V per description.--Isotope23 17:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a category to Delete for cluelessness? Guess not. In that case, just Delete per above: Personal essay/experience Fan1967 17:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a place for personal accounts of experiences with viruses. If the virus can be established as important (I have found nothing to indicate that with Google, etc) then the article needs a complete rewrite, and Mitsukai's above comment seems to indicate that the virus is unimportant.  Cool3 19:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete As has been said previously, this is a personal account and does not belong on Wikipedia Zak.l 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete for a large number of reasons, including, but not limited to, non-notable, unencyclopedic, vanity, original research, unverifiable... EdGl 00:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopedic, personal research Wyoskier 03:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Personal research and useless CloudNine 16:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. What can I say, I'm following the herd. -- Jbamb 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the Proposed deletion process currently being tested out. Consider using that simpler process for the next similar nomination. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Hell, I remember that 99 virus Compu  terjoe  11:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete badly written, personal essay, does not appear to be factually correct, no references, not notable.
 * Above unsigned comment by 85.144.113.76. Bart133 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Super-ultra high strength delete personal experience Bart133 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Personal essay, no references, not noteworthy, more than likely a hoax article. --Maikeru 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I'm a virus researcher, and this was clearly not written by someone who knew what they were doing. This does match behaviour of other viruses, and I doubt it is a complete hoax (although several parts seem just made-up), but this is entirely un-scientific.  It's akin to someone getting rabies and writing an article on "Toothpaste Mouth Syndrome."  --Trafton 01:06, 7 March 2006 (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.