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, with no prejudice against re-creation with different content. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptovirus[edit]

Cryptovirus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is spurious. The only sources that support the existence of such a thing as a "cryptovirus", as described in this article, are press releases and patents by the "discoverer", Steven Robbins. Looie496 (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like a neologism used to promote a single discovery by a non-notable individual. --Ronz (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a discovery not worthy of attention. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 01:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Take another look. I've tried to contextualize it a little-- this is a patented organism that has been used in a couple of studies. It is also an obsoleted taxonomic group. I don't know what bearing either of these should have on the notability of the piece. My personal feeling is that the guy is a bit of a kook, but that this is a verifiable virus-- check out PubMed or Google Scholar. I'll hold off on voting for now-- I'm on the fence. Avram (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Remake into disambiguation page for Partitiviridae and Cryptovirology, or delete. No reliable sources for Steven Robbins' term. Narayanese (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The term cryptovirus has also occasionally been used in a computer-related sense, for a computer virus that uses cryptography. So there are meanings that might justify an article. The reason I filed this AfD was that the existing content was spurious, and if it were removed, the article would have been empty. If somebody wants to write valid content, I have no objection to the article remaining in place. There are no Google Scholar or Pubmed references relevant to the current content that I could find, except that Google Scholoar shows the patent application (which is not a valid source). Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite without any mention of the patent or the patentee. The GS and PubMed references are not about it.. Just the older depreciated taxonomic meaning, and the computer meaning if a reference to it can be found. It will obviously be necessary to watch the article. If the pseudo-science becomes prominent, mention it as such. Not yet, though. DGG (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism without established notability. Existence of a patent and a few mentions around the time of the patent do not establish the word within the field of science. Nor does the existance of a patend establish notability. Wikipedia should not be a place for new science words to become established, leave that to the science journals. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable, unsourced, fails WP:FRINGE. The few PubMed links appear to have little or nothing to do with the putative article subject. If this term has been used for more notable entities, then the article can be recreated to address those meanings. MastCell ^Talk 05:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 12:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as it stands. The current page is just describing a patented virus that is not published to a notable extent. More articles can be found (using Google Scholar) describing the plant "cryptoviruses" than the form described here. The article is also worded poorly, the patented virus was not made, but discovered, no? ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.