Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reader s


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Reader s

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm not sure that this meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Its not clear that "Reader s" is an especially significant or newsworthy piece of malware. Quanticle (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Virut and rewrite. A bit of online research finds that Reader_s is a single filename used by the well-known Virut virus. There are plenty of sources showing that Virut is notable. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  --    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this computer virus. Joe Chill (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete No real coverage, nothing stands out to distinguish this bit of malware from thousands of others. noq (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No assertion that this virus ever did the damage it is claimed to be able to do, this is not even close toMelissa (computer worm). --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 14:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It looks like potentially Virut might have a chance at an article, as Hamburger Radio states. Even if this Reader_s was a pseudonym for Virut, the content in this article now is not a good start to an article on Virut. It is a mishmash of unsupported claims. Miami33139 (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Virut seems to be notable but this isn't even the beginning of an article on that program. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:13, 12 November 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.