Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polymorphing dll

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 of the debate was speedy delete per WP:SNOW

This was originally listed for speedy as patent nonsense, which it is not. It is, however, an unreferenced conspiracy theory about how the US government is using highly encrypted malware to spy on everyone in the world. Was tagged for {{prod}} but the tag was removed. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable WP:OR. --Rory096 00:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless reliable sources turn up making reference to this theory. The source given is not reliable enough. --Allen 00:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverified, the one newsgroup article given as a reference is not authoritative. -- Mithent 00:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. Royboycrashfan 00:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The reference listed on the page has a followup article: "It is a shame to see that this form of mental illness continues to persist." Delete. --Elkman - ^(talk) 01:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable and/or original research. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Complete bollocks. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 02:09Z
• Delete as yet another tedious conspiracy theory. dbtfz^talk 02:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable conspiracruft. Fan1967 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Entertaining, but unverifiable. --die Baumfabrik 02:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Krashlandon (e) 02:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per the others. I add that it seems original research. Bucketsofg 05:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom -- Samir T C 07:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable and stupid --Colin 09:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable allegations, conspiracy theory and probably false --SJMurdoch 09:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Attempt to propagate FUD --Steve 09:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, unverifiable and mostly ridiculous conspiracy theory --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 12:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreliable source for otherwise patent nonsense. It's not even slightly convincing, it did make me laugh though that anyone might fall for something this patently silly Sfnhltb 12:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone. Staxringold 12:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article's one and only reference is a newsgroup posting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax, original research, lunatic rant, unverifiable ➥the Epopt 14:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems like a convoluted joke on the recent NSA wiretapping revelations. And, I wanna see how many votes we can pile on ;-) Grandmasterka 15:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per above. -- Alpha269 15:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is silly. --MattShepherd 15:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everybody else. --AaronS 16:49, 8 March 2006 (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.