Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-worm

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep information - I have a roughly even spread of keeps and merges; therefore, I'm saying that there is no clear consensus between the two and further discussion of whether to merge the article should take place on the talk page. -- Jonel | Speak 06:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anti-worm
There is no such thing as an "anti-worm". What is described in this article is just a worm with a different effect. Within the computer security industry (of which I am a part), the term "anti-worm" is most often used in the same sense as "anti-virus". --Xcali 04:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete seems more like original research there... Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;Talk&#08596;Contributions 05:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the article provides a reference that does indeed refer to these things by this name, whilst Xcali does not. Given that they are "just a worm with a different effect", Merge to computer worm, where there is a small discussion of "benevolent" worms already. Uncle G 11:33, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * Merge per Uncle G.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 16:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Computer worm. JamesBurns 07:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Computer worm. Project2501a 00:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep In my opinion, this should not merged. A search on Google shows that this is not some brand new concept and is much different than a regular computer worm: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=anti-worms&spell=1

"Anti-worms" is a newly coined term, and have been implemented on and off for the past 5 years. Anti-worms are far different than a regular computer worm and deserve their own section. Perhaps a reference from the computer worms article should be made here. Unsigned edit by .
 * Keep No reason really. It just seems fascinating.  Muijzo 01:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I wrote this article and I will be expanding on it shortly. When I add-on to the article, it will more than deserve its own article. --Ebradsha 01:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep looks like real term.  Grue   17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 19:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe that it should stay put. Unsigned edit by .
 * Sorry, one vote per customer, please. Also note that the above user has repeatedly attempted to remove the VfD tag from the article. --Xcali 06:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Given that it looks like this article is going to be kept, I've just undertaken an almost complete rewrite of the article to remove unfactual information and to explain the example better. I also added a "Criticism" section in an attempt to balance things out. I've tried to keep things factual and balanced, but given that I have a strong opinion on this matter as a computer security professional, someone else should probably take a look at it to make sure it meets NPOV guidelines. --Xcali 06:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge to Computer worm. Nothing in this article (Xcali's version or the previous one) establishes that anti-worms are distinct from worms, except in their intent. It's had its week on VfD and major expansion hasn't happened. (Xcali, thanks for your additions.) FreplySpang (talk) 13:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .