== Goon virus == 

 You wrote: 
 :You deleted a real virus called the Goon Virus. There was no other Wikipedia pages on the Goon Virus meaning it was not interfering with ANY searches. It was a real event even if you don't believe it. It hurt NO ONE. It made the creators happy to have proof of such a life changing event to them. You had no reason for your removal of that page. O yea I am not looking at the grammer or spelling of this page. I write this in furry. So I know there are plenty of typos. 

 First off, I didn't delete either the virus or the article...someone else did that.  As an involved party in the discussion regarding whether to delete the article, I was prohibited from deleting it by the protocols of good form.  That said, I obviously am not sad to see the article gone.   

 No objection to the article had anything to do with interference with searches.  In fact, if "interfering with ... searches" were used as a rationale for deleting the article, that rationale would be summarily dismissed.  If it were used as a rationale for nominating the article for deletion, the nomination would have been closed speedily because "search interference", whatever that means, is not a criterion for deletion.  Please refer to WP:DEL, WP:GAFD and WP:AFD for more information. 

 As has been explained numerous times, the fact that this virus struck is irrelevant in a discussion of whether or not it warrants a Wikipedia article.  Whether or not I believe it happened is even more irrelevant.  The problem is that the virus does not fulfill the criteria for notability as outlined in WP:NOTE.  Not only does the virus fail to meet WP:NOTE, the fact that it messed up some computers at a school in Virginia fails WP:NOTE even more dismally.   

 Nobody has argued even in jest that the article was hurting anyone.  What was argued is that the article was about an unnoteworthy virus that reportèdly struck once in one school.  This is so far below the threshhold of notability that it's almost laughable.  If the event had been sufficiently notable to have made it into the media or into a what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source, and then cited properly, the incredibly weak arguments in favor of keeping the article would have been received with a bit less scorn.  

 Whether or not the article made its creators happy is utterly irrelevant.  Please review WP:NOT in its entirety.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog.  If the virus was a life-changing event for the students at the CGS, that's bizarre and a bit pathetic, but it is not a cogent argument in favor of keeping the article. 

 Again, as I said above, I did not delete the article.  Had I done it, however, I would have had ample reason to have done so.   

 In the future, perhaps you should concentrate a bit more careful about your grammar and spelling, not only on user talkpages but in other written discussions, on Wikipedia and elsewhere.  Taking a bit of care in this area will go a long way to dispel the appearance that you are borderline illiterate. 

 Writing in a "furry" is always a bad idea.  Not only does it get hair everywhere, but it makes you sound irrational. 

 Keep working on fixing those typos.  One of these days you'll be perfect like me.  -D  Cheers, e