Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic Torch (virus hoax)


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Olympic Torch (virus hoax)

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

This article does not establish notability of the subject of the article. Unionsoap (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article has 3 reliable sources describing the hoax. I'm not sure why this doesn't qualify as notable, therefore. JulesH (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:HOAX, articles about hoaxes are acceptable, and this definitely reads like an article about a notable hoax covered by 3 independent reliable sources. KuyaBriBri Talk 20:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources:   This source:  mentions that this hoax made the rounds twice in one year, and caused a loss of productivity.  Multiple independent sources written specifically about the topic...that meets WP:Notability.  Cazort (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The Google News sources might be worth looking into, but the existing sources (which are great to verify facts) are not the sort of sources to establish notability because the organizations doing the reporting there list pretty much any virus they find in their database, regardless of how much effects it actually had. (Just like IMDB doesn't help to establish notability for actors or films because they list anything they can get their hands on) = Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak reluctant keep. The sources in the article are certainly not sufficent to justify keeping this article, per WP:NOTDIR, but two of the articles in the Google News search linked by Cazort (The Indian Expess and Wiener Zeitung) just about seem to get this over the notability bar. I say "reluctant" because I do rather despair that trivial geekery like this always gets people weighing in with "keeps", but I have to fight hard to get an article about a town where people live out their whole lives and which has coverage in over 100 books kept, and even then it's only a "no consensus". I know that that's irrelevant to this article, but I had to get it off my chest. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. NOTDIRECTORY. There are very few virus hoaxes already and plenty of sites covering them - the standard for news stories is *much* higher. If we're not having crimes with international coverage like YouTube cat abuse incident included then we don't need to go out of our way to keep this sort of wikicruft around. Accordingly I'd cite WP:NOTNEWS too, specifically WP:SBST because it's ephemeral. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:26, 7 March 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.