Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANTI (computer virus)


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  22:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

ANTI (computer virus)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should be deleted as it does not pass the WP:GNG as it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. The only coverage it has is is in a list of Mac viruses. A WP:BEFORE search revealed no useful sources (only antivirus programs). -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions) 22:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: Pmj (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
 * Keep. A WP:BEFORE search revealed several useful sources, which are now added, fulfilling the notability requirement. This deletionist crusade is not the answer; expanding articles is the answer. But it's so much easier to destroy than to create, isn't it.--pmj (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - with the possible exception of the SMH newspaper piece which I could not access (link given in the refs) the refs are from standard virus listings, i.e. not "detailed coverage". I could not find better, but for obvious reasons the search key "anti virus" does not yield good results. Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTE makes no mention of "detailed coverage". Which policy are you referring to? Most of these references are significant, reliable secondary sources, and all are independent of the subject.
 * The link works for me, both directly and via Tor Browser. It comprises a thumbnail of the scanned newspaper page along with its complete OCR text. --pmj (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG, part of WP:N, says "significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail (emphasis added). The long-standing practice at AfD is that comprehensive or pseudo-comprehensive listings of foo do not make a particular listed instance of foo notable.
 * As for the SMH, for some reason I can now read the OCR text (I would have sworn it was not there). It is a review of a bulletin board of Symantec, and includes a totally trivial mention of ANTI (far below anything GNG-worthy). The entirety of the relevant quote is as follows: From the Symantec dial-up bulletin board last week, we downloaded the latest definitions to deal with three of the latest potential Macintosh interlopers: the "Garfield 2", "Anti-Ange" and "ZucB" viruses. Garfield 2 creates difficulties with accessing applications or menus in the Mac system; Anti-Ange attaches itself to applications resource code, sometimes causing them to crash; ZucB, an Italian strain, causes your cursor to go crazy. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can only speak to the policy as written. The bulk of the references in this article satisfy this requirement (emphasis added):
 * ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."


 * Let us abide by policy and not move the goalposts beyond what is codified. --pmj (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How is the quote above "more than a trivial mention"? The entire content is Anti-Ange attaches itself to applications resource code, sometimes causing them to crash (which applications (all of them?)? how does it "attach itself to it"?). How does a listing in a comprehensive virus list "[address] the topic in detail"?
 * On a side note, if you want to accuse me of moving the goalposts, please provide exact quotes. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Relax, we're on the same team. I came here to clear up some WP:BEFORE misunderstanding, and that is done. So you can understand how in this context, mention of an undocumented "long-standing practice" outside published policy would seem Kafkaesque.
 * We may have different concepts of what the phrase "in detail" means in that rule. For you it is the most important part of the rule, and you have heuristics about what "detail" means, right? Whereas I didn't even think to bold it, because the second sentence gives a definition: more than a trivial mention. Which the specific, technically detailed references from McAfee and UHH for instance are by a wide margin. --pmj (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, but improve I read the article over, and I think it could be more thoroughly referenced. However, I think it meets WP:GNG. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:58, 14 March 2017 (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.