Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VirusBurst: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[VirusBurst]]: no amount of "I say it's notable" is sufficient |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:I'd note that the only ''other'' blue link there also fails to provide any indication of [[WP:N|notability]]. If the ink this recieves amounts only to placing seventh in a list for a single month... Barring coverage by third-party sources to establish verification per our [[WP:5P|bedrock policies]] no amount of "I say it's notable" is sufficient. |
:I'd note that the only ''other'' blue link there also fails to provide any indication of [[WP:N|notability]]. If the ink this recieves amounts only to placing seventh in a list for a single month... Barring coverage by third-party sources to establish verification per our [[WP:5P|bedrock policies]] no amount of "I say it's notable" is sufficient. |
||
:[[User:152.91.9.144|152.91.9.144]] 03:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
:[[User:152.91.9.144|152.91.9.144]] 03:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
||
Keep This virus is notable. [[User:Jmldalton|Jmldalton]] 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:13, 6 December 2006
Non-notable spyware..? JDtalk 12:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral seems pretty heavy on the ghits RichMac (Talk) 12:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Changed vote to neutral per Demiurge's comment on Google bias. RichMac (Talk) 12:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unless this can be shown to have notability above any other given spyware program. All the Google hits seem to be explaining what it is, how to remove it or trying to trick people into installing it — a good example of the Google bias in action. Wikipedia is not a directory of malware. Demiurge 12:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. If the nominator thinks this spyware is non-notable, than s/he should take a look at similar articles at Category:Rogue software, and nominate appropriate ones for deletion. This AFD vote could act like a "precedent" for the other ones. —EdGl 18:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 19:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable. as per above. –– 30sman 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is a very notable Trojan attack. Trusting users of the Internet have their computers hijacked by this -- and then pay for the privilege of installing an even more malicious version! I just spent six hours trying to free a friend's machine of this malware. If I'd followed my impulse to get more information, I might not have had to reload the O/S. -- Dpbeckfield 11:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- keep per others. The Symantec site is a reliable source. There are quite lot of them are. Unfortunate, but that's no reason to keep them out.01:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)DGG
- The claims of "notable" above fail to provide any evidence to support these claims, and editor testimony does not amount to verification. Looking for a reliable source to support these claims of notability: Google news has two hits, one of which has the following table of prevelant threats for a single month:
- Trojan-Downloader.Zlob.Media-Codec 1.67 %
- DesktopScam 1.43 %
- Trojan.Smitfraud 0.71 %
- SpySheriff 0.66 %
- Virtumonde 0.63 %
- Trojan.Win32.Qhost.hf 0.62 %
- VirusBurst 0.57 %
- I'd note that the only other blue link there also fails to provide any indication of notability. If the ink this recieves amounts only to placing seventh in a list for a single month... Barring coverage by third-party sources to establish verification per our bedrock policies no amount of "I say it's notable" is sufficient.
- 152.91.9.144 03:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep This virus is notable. Jmldalton 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)