Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VirusBurst (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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VirusBurst[edit]

A prior AfD closure as "Keep" was overturned at deletion review and is now back here for reconsideration. Please consider the prior discussions, especially the lack of tangible evidence in the first AfD cited as reason to overturn the closure. This is a procedural listing, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 23:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the article fails to establish notability of this particular threat. The link to Symantec gives the risk as "medium". I don't believe Wikipedia should become a repository of every possible piece of malware. I would like articles in this genre to meet the WP:SOFTWARE criteria and to have the very highest risk level designation of one of the major anti-virus vendors. JonHarder ^talk 03:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability in the world of malware and viruses isn't really set as such, but unless third parties are writing about it (other than say Norton and McAfee...) it doesn't really have much notability in my opinion. A quick scan of the definitions list for your antivirus software shows well over 50,000 known virus profiles, if each of those is worthy of an article... ouch. If, however, it's been written about in news sources or such, and the sourcing can be provided, then I'd say keep. As it is, delete with no prejudice. Wintermut3 06:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As JonHarder states, it is only a low level threat [1]. However, it does get 190000 ghits [2], mainly on ways to get rid of it. As per WP:CORP it would pass as there are many more than 3 reviews (albeit the reviews are all negative). However, as WP:SOFTWARE it's really only a minor player, alexa =8974, and how many of those are people looking to get rid of the maliscious adware. [3]. I agree with Wintermut3 that only the most notable of these would be worthy of an article. SkierRMH 06:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources, no sources at all - no article. See WP:V and WP:RS. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete seems spammish. Just H 20:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not spam; the first sentence clearly states it is a fake application and a rogue software. If it is spam, they're doing a terrible job of promoting themselves. Wavy G 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that it's not spam, but do you think it's notable enough for its own article? -- Satori Son 01:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I had my own run in with this a while back, and when I was looking up the fix for it, I discovered that it seemed to be a pretty big to do at the time. Then again, the consensus here seems to be that it is not that notable, so what do I know? (That's a rhetorical question; don't answer it.) Wavy G 02:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wavy G. Big top 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE notability guidlines. -- wtfunkymonkey 01:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article makes absolutely no claim to notability - and in a quick search, I was unable to find any support for such a claim anyway. --Krich (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or Merge this into a larger article. Perhaps Malware. Charlie 22:38, 21 December 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.