Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy99


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy99

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Unremarkable and fairly old computer virus; there are literally millions of computer viruses and there's nothing particularly notable about this one. –  iride scent  15:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I wouldn't quite call it non-notable. ←  Spidern  →  15:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? Those don't demonstrate any kind of notability, those just demonstrate that as a computer virus, it's listed in directories of computer viruses. What gives this virus any particular significance amongst the millions of others? –  iride scent  16:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's listed in so many is generally indicative of its notability. According to Sophos's Computer viruses demystified, "Happy99 was the first well-known virus to spread itself rapidly by email." ←  Spidern  →  16:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The Sophos quote demonstrates its notability. Needs to go in the article though! --Ged UK (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ ←  Spidern  →  16:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per added Sophos ref.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Historical value, virus of late 90's along with Melissa, and Chernobyl that brought AV to mainstream attention. Article will probably need the resources of books like this and this to make the WP:N police happy though. — Ched (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I had heard of this one and google news archive popped up 344 hits, with some articles comparing other worms/viruses to Happy99 as a reference, which itself implies a certain degree of notability. Cazort (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Surely being "the first virus to spread rapidly by email" would make it notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  10:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is or can be reliably sourced to mainstream accounts of notable computer viruses. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable per references. The article also labels it (with a footnote) as "the first virus to spread rapidly by email", which would certainly make it notable in virus history. Scapler (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2009 (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.