Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plural of virus

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 (edit | 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 (octopi springs to mind) so maybe there is scope to expand this to include others. pablo_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]

  This is Wikipedia, not wiki. Stifle (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. Proxy User (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? Stifle (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 Virus isn't going to work well as that article is already 100KB (see Wikipedia:Splitting#Article size). Even the 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]

• Keep thou shalt not delete me. Viridae^Talk 20:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have any serious, policy-based reason for keeping this article? Stifle (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wiktionary and redirect to virus article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICTIONARY). --Sloane (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Transwiki a copy of this should exist at Wiktionary in some form at any rate. However, words can be encyclopedically dealt with, with a treatment of the word's history and origins. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No problem with transwikification to an appropriate outlet. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Beautiful example of "recording the knowledge of the world". Informative treatment of etymological origins and related terms in Greek and Sanskrit, insightful juxtaposition with plurals of other Latin nouns, interesting stray into mass nouns, factual, concise, to the point. The article is highly encyclopedic, it's way too simplistic and plain wrong to denounce it as a mere dicdef. This information has no natural home in specialist articles on the biological agent or computer vira, oops, viruses - leave alone problems of keeping these articles at manageable sizes. Trivia - (Wha..!?), after reading the article who would honestly reply affirmative that "answer subsequently sounds familiar once revealed" - no way. If we are "going to get articles about every oddball plural in English and perhaps in other languages too" I would warmly welcome them, even if they have not yet reached the same mature stage as this article. The page has survived an earlier VfD in its infancy, fortunately people then could see the potential. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a good example of why wiktionary should not be the default for articles about words. This is much more then a basic dictionary definition and should be further expanded to outline the history of usages and possibly dissect the differences of uses by culture, if possible. -- Banjeboi 11:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge/redirect any info here that's reliable and not already on the appropriate articles. DreamGuy (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing should be transwikied to Wiktionary if it contains information that is not best presented in a dictionary definition format. This obviously goes further, and the result would be loss of data. And this is easily long enough and has enough separate references to be broken out of virus as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is encyclopedic and interesting. — Reinyday, 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just because you find it interesting doesn't mean we should keep it. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's got plenty of verified content that is beyond the scope of Wiktionary. Merging everything to the parent article would give undue weight to the significance of the word relative to the subject. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is exactly why Orange (word) exists independently of its primary denotative meanings. There is significant linguistic interest in the word, but it is not directly related to the color or the fruit to which it most commonly refers, so it would be improper and awkward to merge with either of them. — CharlotteWebb 18:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That (Orange looks to me the perfect example of dictionary content, which has no place in an encyclopaedia. Wnjr (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, actually "dictionary content" usually looks like this (but without the pictures). Curious, would you also argue that none of these or indeed these have any place in an encyclopedia? — CharlotteWebb 14:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - well-referenced, it's exactly the sort of thing academics discuss - I know from a discussion this very week with my co-workers! More importantly, this is the sort of thing a high school or college student would like to find, and find only here in Wikipedia. I aslo agree with CharlotteWebb, that this is the sort of thing that ought to be in an encyclopedia, not merely a dictionary. As Explodicle wrote above, it has "verified content ... beyond the scope of Wiktionary," which necessitates the existence of this article. Finally, as Power.corrupts suggests, this is an example of disseminating knowledge to all. This may be the first time that I've ever argued to keep when DGG has suggested otherwise. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Merge - I agree that this is the sort of information Wikipedia can be useful for, but, like the plural of octopus, it would be better off in the virus article. (Even for orange, would it really be all that harmful to have info about the fruit and the colour on the same page?) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:10, 12 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.