Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plural of virus

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. I really urge the parties to discuss a merge at the talk page. MBisanz talk 08:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of virus

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

The entire content of this article is either trivia and speculation, or belongs on wiktionary. The non-trivial content is included in virus and wiktionary:virus entries already Wnjr (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The explanation of why 'viri' or 'virii' are incorrect pluralisations is clearer and easier to understand here, as it is much more detailed. An explanation in such detail does not belong in a dictionary, nor does such etymological detail belong on the article on viruses, as it puts undue weight on a tangential topic. The article references a number of appropriate sources, so the concern over speculation seems unfounded. JulesH (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per JulesH, however this is just one case of an incorrect plural, often from Latin or Greek roots (
    hablo. 11:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete- Reads like an essay or original research. The tone of the article is too loose, if it were summarized it would make a good couple of sentences in the virus article, which is where it belongs, and the amount of coverage it warrants. Sticky Parkin 13:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What, is Wiki running short of disk space? One could make a good case for not having half the articles in Wiki, on the grounds that any of them have various faults or that we really only need to cover (insert editor's individual pet subject here). I am pretty sure I could make a "trivia" case against at least 10% of Wiki's content. Trivia is knowledge too, in fact, calling it trivia is essentially a value judgement, saying that someone else's knowledge and concerns are unimportant. This is useful information and covers subject matter that is often subject to mistakes and false assertions. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    talk) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to Virus While we're not running short on disk space, it's still a bad idea to have this article. If we allow this, we're going to get articles about every oddball plural in English and perhaps in other languages too. We don't need to banish it to Wiktionary either. The fact it's a FAQ answer means people frequently wonder about it, so giving the answer on the article about the subject is reasonable. It just needs to be summarized. The sources are already explaining it properly. If they're not giving it your own interpretation would be original research. - Mgm|(talk) 13:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge by adding a couple of sentences to the "Etymology" section of Virus. No need for a rambling stand-alone article. Deor (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly trivia.
    talk) 16:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Rewrite and move to Latin nouns in English, which would be a useful and well-sourced article to be written, and I'm surprised something like that doesn't already exist. (If it does, and I haven't found it, then Merge this into that.) But this as a standalone makes no sense. THF (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems like a notable enough topic. It would be a distraction in the Computer virus article which would be the logical place to merge. It would also be lost in a longer article on Latin plurals. Redddogg (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent example of a word history. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify why it should be here, not on Wiktionary?
    talk) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Mother of God. Delete. Merge with virus, or some article about linguistics. This is NOT notable enough to warrant an entire article. Macarion (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Sticky Parkin. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per
    WP:DICTIONARY §hawnpoo 05:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Merging to
    intro section has been forked off in an effort to keep the page size manageable. The sources cited in this article amply demonstrate the grammar of this particular word has been a matter of significant interest independent from the word's denotative meaning (that is, actual viruses/virii/viridae/whatever). — CharlotteWebb 14:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge as THF suggests. This is not encyclopedic information in any possible sense. DGG (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have restored the Rescue template because one of the nomination reasons was The entire content of this article is either trivia and speculation...speculation or
speculate is defined in Wikitonary as # (intransitive) to make an inference based on inconclusive evidence; to surmise or conjecture. Since the rescue template is meant to attract more references...it is for this reason that I put the resuce template on.--Smallman12q (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Just because you find it
    T/C) 17:49, 10 March 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Plural_of_virus&oldid=1138239861"