Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of trojan horses (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Timeline of notable computer viruses and worms. Consensus indicated not to retain due to weak definition, best option is to merge. MBisanz ^talk 06:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

List of trojan horses

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of trojan horses
• Articles for deletion/List of trojan horses (2nd nomination)

List of trojan horses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Declined a speedy which said "This article has multiple users, as found on the talk page at the bottom", whatever that means. Either way, this is a list of largely non-notable material, very few of these are actually bluelinked and I see no purpose in a list that's almost all red links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per consensus at previous AFD. I don't think anything has changed. JulesH (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with a category, to prevent cruft like dates and platforms being added indiscriminately. Benefix (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm normally an inclusionist kind of guy, and this list has been around for over 3 years. OTOH, it's in very poor shape. I think that it's such a daunting undertaking, that people come, make a couple edits, see what an overwhelming chore this would be - and leave. Anything on the virus, malware, trojan, worm type of list is just going to require an absolutely massive amount of work to resemble any type of quality. I'm gonna hold off on my !vote here til I see a little more input from others on this one. — Ched (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. First, I mean that the article has multiple issues ... that needed to be addressed. However, there were few active users, except for User:Ched Davis. First issue; the article has lots of generic detections, such as Generic!artemis. That shows a lack of understanding from users; generic detections are leveled toward detecting a broad range of threats; not necessarily trojans. Second; the list is very incomplete; there are way more trojans that the 40 some that were listed. Third, which vendor's detections are we relying on? I have seen numerous times in where "Vendor A" detected a specific file as a trojan, "Vendors B and C" detected it as a rootkit, and "Vendors D and E" said the file was clean. Continuing with that point; many most of today's threats are polymorphic; meaning that they take on characteristics from many threat categories; for example, antivirus 2009 is a trojan and a malicious downloader, to name a few off the top of my head. It tricks the user into thinking it is legit, which it isn't. That's a typical trojan. Then, once on the user's computer, it is reported to download more malware; just search antivirus 2009 in threatexpert. In conclusion, it being detected as a trojan or a downloader (aka fraudload; it loads fraudulent security software) isn't wrong. And to nail the coffin shut, AV-test.org maintains current cross-referenced list of all in-the-wild viruses for each month. Why reinvent the wheel? TechOutsider (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
  • For those of you who aren't computer techs - MS Antivirus may help in understanding some of these points. — Ched (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ched, have you reached a decision? BTW, I already referenced to MS AntiVirus (antivirus 2009) =). TechOutsider (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
• Delete. Another issue! What platform:
  • Windows? Which version? XP? Vista? Many XP viruses/trojans can't touch Vista.
  • Mac?
  • Linux? If so, which distro?
  • DOS?
  • Unix?

does this list apply too? Nobody has even thought about that?????!!!!!????!!!!! TechOutsider (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

• • While I agree with 10 Pound that a list of redlinks doesn't serve much purpose, (other than the request for articles page) I'm not ready to jump on the delete bandwagon yet. I've been looking over the virus list articles, article histories, past AfD posts and such first. I think things usually stay up for about 5 days, so I'm not in any rush yet. The link I posted to the MS Antivirus article was mainly to underscore the antivirus 2009 link - I probably should have made that more clear. I definitely don't think going through and deleting all the virus list articles is the way to go. I'll be the first to admit that the computer related articles need to be improved. And I think us techs need to approach it from a Wikipedia point of view - meaning that the articles should provide information in a layman sense first - then we can expand or fork those technical issues later. I like the table idea I saw on some of the AV articles - but again, it's a huge topic. Right now I'm leaning towards a merge/consolidate course of action. I'd rather fix things than just delete them cause they're not up to snuff. Jules is right about the previous consensus, and I'd be interested in the category idea that Benefix mentioned. I have this watchlisted, so I won't be bugging out without a definite !vote. — Ched (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Merge with ... ? I seeing to that the article is merged with the trash. TechOutsider (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
• Rename and rebuild rename to List of trojan horse malware (as opposed to hiding soldiers inside various devices to have them breach fortifications when those devices are passed to defenders). And I see no reason as to why platforms are excluded, since it would be a good idea to do that, so rebuild as a sortable table (release date, platform, name) 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - This one's tough because the topic and list could be useful and notable, but it hasn't developed into that after a very long time. All of the red-links should probably be removed and the list pared back down to programs that have their own pages (or could). It would be better as a small but accurate stub rather than the mess it is now. Shadowjams (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete the subject is weakly defined, and most things in this list will be debatable if they are in fact trojan horses or just programs designed to remotely access computers. Being included in this list is potentially damning for a product, so we have to be 100 sure of the motives behind the creators, which we can't be. A category "Programs used as trojan horses" might be a little more neutral. Themfromspace (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Agree with Themfromspace. How do the people who contributed to this list know the programs/detections listed are legitimately malicious and can be defined as a trojan? Did they use a virtual machine with a Host-based intrusion detection system program to record and monitor the program's actions? No. This list of simply a list of detections/programs encountered by users which they believed are malicious, with little or no basis. Looking at the first 5 bluelinked articles, as a matter of fact, none of them cite any references. They needed to be deleted as well as this article. They simply seem to be some rudimentary research done by a newbie user. TechOutsider (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

• • Comment TechOutsider, you're only supposed to actually !vote (delete) once - the others should be comments. ;) — Ched (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect I cleaned up the list a little, and I suggest merging it with Timeline of notable computer viruses and worms.--Sloane (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Whatever happens to this article it shouldn't exist under this extremely recentist name. The phrase "Trojan horse" refers to a concept that has been around for thousands of years. Let's not assume that the metaphorical use in the last decade or two is the primary use. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not seem necessary. EagleFan (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has potential. The only trojans listed there, are those deemed notable enough to have their own wikipedia page. Perhaps having a category for them instead would make more sense. Anyway, if you wanted to read about trojan horses, then this list would be helpful for you to find them all. If there are any major ones that need to be added, then someone can add them. No sense deleting an article simply because it is incomplete. Dream Focus 01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, > merge merge with the timeline and av list articles. — Ched (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment also a Strong Agree to dab rather than redirect. Conventional and historical items should be included with current tech lingo of Trojan. — Ched (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. A list does not require research (for the most part). A redirect would not be helpful as this is a trojan-only article. They are notable, and therefore should be kept. However, I also think that a category, such as "Trojan horse", should be created. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 03:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant to a category. Trojans shouldn't be listed here unless they're notable, and if they're notable they'll have an article which can be placed in a category. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete basically per TechOutsider. This article has multiple problems and I don't think clean-up would solve them. Tavix (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Exactly, Tavix. How would cleanup help? Cleanup basically means verifying each and every one of the blue linked wikilinks. The first 5 don't cite references; I didn't bother checking further. Most of the articles will probably be deleted as well from a lack of reliable sources. TechOutsider (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
  • Comment. Are we listing detections here? Or filenames? Or software names? TechOutsider (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
• Keep if someone wants to add value, eg alternative names and date of release. Otherwise delete as redundant to a category. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and improve by making a table. Artw (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment A table? What do you mean?
    • Something more along the lines of the viruses article. Artw (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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.