Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMART HDD


 * 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.  bibliomaniac 1  5  19:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

SMART HDD

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not individually notable as the ources listed do not appear to be reliable as they are simply entries in security company databases. There is no in-depth coverage on the malware even in the specialised computer security press. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The sources already in the article do not match the nominator's description; this for example is not an "entry in a security company database." There are sources showing what it is, how to remove it, and they go into great detail about it, unambiguously meeting WP:GNG. Just because some of the sources are database entries does not mean that all of the sources are; something that should have been checked before nominating the article for deletion. A cursory Google search shows plenty of articles that go into detail about what it is and how to remove it as well as a few books such as Introduction to Machine Learning with Applications in Information Security and research papers such as this one. It does not appear that any effort was taken to discuss on the article's talk page or search for sources before nominating the article for deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that the removal guides are not reliable sources for they are self-published and likely sponsored by security companies, the other two simply have trivial, passing mentions of the subject, which is certainly not enough to establish notability for it is not in-depth coverage. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your definition of self-published does not match Wikipedia's definition, and if you're claiming they are sponsored content, you need to show how that's the case, rather than make wild stabs at trying to discredit sources. Do you have evidence of this claim? As for the book and the research papers, what you're describing as trivial again does not match Wikipedia's definition of that term:
 * "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.
 * The book and the research paper not only uses SMART HDD (not S.M.A.R.T) in its work, but goes into detail into what it is and why it matters in the context of the book. That's not a trivial mention by any measure of the word. Even if your assertion that the other reliable sources are sponsored content, the article's subject still meets WP:GNG, as there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Given the depth in which the sources go into the topic's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A trivial mention would be "there are other malware such as SMART HDD" and nothing further. The research paper, for example, says "We're testing malware including SMART HDD and here's the findings, here's what SMART HDD is (pg 8), what it does and why it's included within a certain family of malware (pg 12), how the AUC comparisons stack up on figures 9 and 10 (on the research paper, pp. 10-11) and a further explanation of what SMART HDD actually is (pg 8). In what way is that a trivial mention? - Aoidh (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: The removal guides are WP:ROUTINE for malware, and from questionable sources at that. Outside of mentioning it as part of a group of tested malware, the book and paper only have the same short blurb about the software. This is unsurprising as they turn out to have a common author, meaning that they are considered to be one source for purposes of notability. A single extremely poor citation does not confer notability even in the best of cases, but this is an article about malware, which Wikipedia should not be writing about unless it is clearly and unambiguously notable (much like the higher standards for hoaxes, or even BLPs). Modernponderer (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:MILL malware; the sources are trivial or self-published.  Sandstein   07:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - While this certainly exists and has garnered a bit of infamy... well, that's not the same thing as notability. I agree. I'm also inclined to think that the malware doesn't merit its own page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2020 (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.