Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richmonitius


 * 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   speedy delete. (G3, vandalism) Confirmed hoax.. Multiple editors came up empty-handed when looking for sources. Mgm|(talk) 14:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Richmonitius


It's a hoax. Three independent editors, including me, came to that conclusion at Proposed Deletion. At least two of us searched for sources ourselves, coming up completely empty-handed. Needless to say, there are no sources cited in the article. Uncle G (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wow. The sole ghit is the WP page. -Seidenstud (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I prod-2'd the article for being a probable WP:HOAX. No ghits and no news makes it largely non-notable, and a lack of reliable sources makes it not verifiable. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 06:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as vandalism (G3). This database on viruses is exhaustive and doesn't list this. Also, I've had a basic course in virology and there's a lot of dubious statements in here that wouldn't fly without experimental evidence. Also not hits in disease databases or on NCBI for relevant genes. - Mgm|(talk) 14:22, 29 December 2008 (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.