Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Java update 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Java update virus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod. I'll give the same reasoning again:There is no such thing as the "Java update virus". The "fake software update" window is a fairly common trojan/malware delivery system, not a specific piece of software, has had no coverage in reliable sources other than in-passing "make sure you're updating Java from the correct site" mentions on tech blogs and the like, and certainly doesn't warrant an article of its own. There are (literally) millions of viruses, malware and trojans, and aside from those which have a genuinely significant economic or cultural impact Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to document them. The page creator admits that no sources exist (see the article talk page), but wants this article kept to "raise awareness of that virus causing a research group to carefully research how that virus works then they will create a reliable source for that article". I've tried to explain that this isn't how Wikipedia works, but with no apparent success. Mogism (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom & WP:COMMONSENSE - Download off a non-official site - You 90% get a virus ..... It's common sense ... →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  00:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of sourcing. An individual virus is only notable if there's specific sourcing for that virus. This article is unsourced and so far no more than rumour and scaremongering. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of deleting the article, it might be better to rename it and turn it into an article about all viruses that pretend to be a Java update and mention the spicific virus I was talking about somewhere in that article since it's such a powerful virus. There should also be a redirect from the old name of the article to the new name. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete this is a how-to guide about some nonspecific nonnotable virus. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - combination of original research, no reliable sources, and how-to. As above, this article does not belong in wikipedia.Dialectric (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said in the talk page of that article, by using this article to raise awareness of that specific version of the virus that resembles a Java update, antimalware programmers will try desperately hard to invent an antimalware software that can even fully undo the effects of that specific virus that is much more powerful than the other viruses resembling a Java update. Furthermore, those people will be carefully researching how to fight against that virus putting what they discover about that virus into a scientific journal, then that scientific journal will be able to be used as a source for that article. They will be able to research that virus by typing in the address at the top of this image on specially designated computers that they don't mind corrupting. Java Update virus.png By deleting that article, you would be causing a permanent problem of there being no long properly written article about that topic to save a temporary problem of it being unsourced. Other people will probably lengthen that article once that scientific journal gets made. Once that article gets deleted, I don't see any other way awareness of that virus could spread so much that it causes antimalware researches to make a scientific journal about that virus creating a sufficiently good source to recreate that deleted article. Blackbombchu (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are any of you people who are discussing whether this article ahould be deleted frantically hunting for reliable sources for this article and not just discussing whether it should be deleted? It only takes one reliable source to close the discussion. Blackbombchu (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Before dismissing what other experienced editors are saying, perhaps you should consider that you are the one who is not following any of our notability guidelines and giving common incorrect arguments. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable computer virus (actually just malware), written seemingly from personal experience and akin to a guide. Seems like one of the many spoof websites. The importance claim is made, but not backed up by any reliable third party sources. I can only find forum and anti-virus website mentions of malware instances of similar behaviour, although the term doesn't seem consistent. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All it takes is one research group to do a very small bit of fiddling around with the virus by bing searching the website address that shows at the top of the image in the article Java update virus and clicking the link titled "Please Update Java" to verify the information written in that article. They could do that so fast and easily. Typing that website address directly into the bar at the top of the browser blocks taking you to that website. Not having that article is bad for everybody around the world who is trying to rid themselves of very powerful viruses and even affects people who would never read that article. Even if that article exists, most people who benefit from the existence of that article will never have read it or know of its existence but will still be highly benefitted from its existence because that will cause researchers to create a much stronger antivirus program that can fight off even the toughest computer viruses and have that program automatically installed onto the newest computers from the start. The information already in the article is super fast for researchers to verify for themselves and can be done in under 5 minutes once those researchers are notified of the information in that article. The only slow part of researching that virus is learning the computer code for that virus and why having the code be what it is makes it be a virus. The already existing information in the article is really fast to verify but the expansion of that article can be much slower adding extra information that is much slower to research. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Like many new users who didn't use WP:AFC and whose first experience is article deletion, you are emotionally invested and have not read our policies and guidelines. What you are saying is using primary sources, doing original research, making the keep case because it is useful and valuable, as well as making Wikipedia a primary source, all of which we don't do. We do not invent articles, we use sources. It takes 1 sentence to summarize how this article does not belong on Wikipedia, because editors can point to a long-standing broadly accepted guideline. Instead, your long replies are your own viewpoint that doesn't match our practices. And while there is nothing wrong with a different view, you haven't shown why yours should take precedence over something broadly accepted by thousands of editors. There are many ways you can inform more people about this, but Wikipedia is not one of them. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete—What said, but I'll say it again: unsourced WP:OR  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 00:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a second reference in case you hadn't noticed. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You clearly still haven't read WP:RELIABLE, which explains how some user's video and a forum post are not reliable sources. And we need reliable sources to establish notability. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * USE AT YOUR OWN RISK! Only bing searching the url of the Java update virus without the https:// will get you to a link titled "Please Update Java" and that link takes you to the Java update virus and clicking OK will permanently corrupt your computer. It's such a long url. No one is going to click a search result that is the Java update virus without it being on purpose. Blackbombchu (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The most important reason of all to keep the article Java update virus is not so much to enable people to do a scan that fully gets rid of that virus but rather to educate people having them avoid downloading it in the first place when they get redirected to the webpage for downloading the Java update virus. It will cause practically no one to get tricked into downloading that virus because they will have either read the article themself or been told by a friend who read the article about the fake Java update. Blackbombchu (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not a reason at all. That's like saying we need an article on Avoiding being hit by a bus because it will educate people on how not to get hit by a bus. We are an encyclopedia, not a guide. We rely on sources for evidence of notability, not subjective reasoning or claims that it is useful. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Extra information that is verifiable has been added to the introduction. The most anyone should even think of doing with this article now is removing only the unsourced information from the article, not deleting the entire article. Even removing the unsorced information should not be done for quite a long time until enough time goes by that there's no hope of any reliable sources for that information being found. Perhaps that information will be removed and then later on, when the article is really well known about, a source for that information will start existing and the same information will get added back into the article later by going to the article's history. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable, per above. Blackbombchu, what you're describing here: Perhaps that information will be removed and then later on, when the article is really well known about, a source for that information will start existing and the same information will get added back into the article later by going to the article's history. is precisely what Wikipedia does not do. To quote WP:NOT: Those ... issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. We do not have articles to raise awareness about unknown issues; we follow the sources, we do not lead them. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article Java update virus is gaining a dangerously low amount of attention. If enough time goes by with it being nominated for deletion, it will get deleted. Please help spread awareness of this article as much as possible because if enough people see that article, lots of indepent reliable sources for it will get added really quickly turning it into a notable article. Maybe somebody could find another Wikipedia article where it's suitable to mention the Java update virus somewhere in that article. Maybe that article can get posting on sharing sites like Facebook, Twitter and other sharing sites, like I have done at https://www.facebook.com/#!/timothy.bahry. I don't see why that should be against Wikipedia's policies. When that link gets clicked, you see the Wikipedia version of that article, not the Facebook version of it. Blackbombchu (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is headed for deletion not because it has "a dangerously low amount of attention" but because - as you were told when you tried off-wiki canvassing this debate - there is no such thing as the "Java update virus". This is a generic fake alert page, and the reason you can't find reliable sources is that they will never be written. Mogism (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, any good faith I had is now gone. Blatantly asking to "spread awareness"? The user clearly isn't interested in any constructive discussion or following any of our guidelines and has pretty much ignored anything anyone has said. Looking at their contributions, they seem to add links to this article from wherever possible under thinly guised reasons to the point of it becoming disruptive. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not true. I'm just a beginner and there are so many Project pages discussing the guidelines of Wikipedia. I will never be able to find them all and reading all of those Project pages that discuss policies of how Wikipedia articles should work would take way longer than I have time for. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Every single applicable guideline was linked to you. In fact, I linked WP:GNG 3 times. This is more good faith than you will ever likely see towards you at an AfD. GNG is literally 5 bullet points that covers the entirety of basic inclusion criteria. You have had time to edit the article many time, comment in dozens of places, and many times over in this AfD. You certainly had time to read 1 section of a page. At this point I agree with Dialectric. Either you are deliberately misleading us or are unable to understand what we are saying.  —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that at this point, Blackbombchu's responses are either trolling or incompetence, and until the user demonstrates an understanding of basic wikipedia policies, there is no reason to engage further.Dialectric (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't add any links to that article from another article and never plan on doing so because I never trusted myself in the first place to know how to make a good edit. You can click "What links here" on the article Java update virus for proof. I figured that maybe somebody else would know how to do it in a way that makes the article better and only on those articles where information about the Java update virus is suitable to add. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2013 (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.