Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venomcrack


 * 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 &mdash; fails notability guidelines. In the future, please be nice to everyone in deletion discussions &mdash; there's no need to rude. --Haemo 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Venomcrack

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability. By way of an irrelevant aside for the gentle reader to take for whatever value it's worth, I know the author of this software, and this smacks of a vanity article of his own creation. Katavothron 13:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hansonc 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Its interesting history and its notable by the fact that it affected several people including myself, and is listed in the AVG datafile. scope_creep 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I think it's safe to say Wikipedia isn't going to be covering the thousands of viruses listed in the AVG datafile. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is a research tool. A computer virus is something people research on the internet.
 * Certainly, but we're not talking about removing all the information on computer viruses, only one particular virus that seems of little note. Perhaps a Google search would be enlightening?  Excluding Wikipedia and the first name of the author as search terms (to get rid of the various places he himself has bragged about it), Google turns up very little (even less of which has anything to do with this particular virus), which is probably a reasonable metric by which to gage the impact and significance of a particular computer virus.   For comparison: CIH, Melissa, Sobig, Code Red, ILOVEYOU, etc.  Granted, google tests are of limited utility and I picked very high-profile counterexamples, but the notability of software with less than one hundred search engine hits is far more questionable than one with a few hundred thousand.  More to the point, when the existence of this wikipedia page causes the subject to nearly double its search engine presence (due to mirrors and such), can it be called notable in its own right?  Do any other Wikipedia pages on related topics reference Venomcrack?  Does the subject have any claim to fame whatsoever beyond "it is a computer virus"?  Is it within the scope of this site to catalog every obscure piece of malware in existence?  Forgive my ignorance of this site's standards, but if I'm wrong here then we must subscribe to a very different notion of notability.  Katavothron 23:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I like how you make an argument by comparing it to high profile non-comparable events and yet you still tweeked the search to help you even more. Yeah we probably do have different notions of notability.  I believe that Google results =/= notability and that "notability" obviously doesn't really apply to Wikipedia anyway.  See the billion or so articles on Pokemon or any other obscure fantasy world.  At least this actually exists in the real unlike many "notable" topics on Wikipedia.   Hansonc 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the hostility and sarcasm, is this how people are treated on this site?


 * I don't know whether notability really is a criteria for this site, but if it is I assert that this virus is non-notable because the very best source for finding information about computer viruses (the internet, which google does a reasonable job of indexing) yields almost no relevant information about it that didn't come from this very site. There is no evidence to be found that it had any significant impact on any number of people whatsoever.  You have explained what you don't believe constitutes notability, but you haven't provided a single reason why you believe that this virus stands out among the tens of thousands of instances of malware out there.  What's more, comparing the notability of this virus to a children's media franchise that is instantly recognizable by millions of people worldwide is  simply ridiculous.


 * If this notability thing isn't actually an issue and I'm just needlessly causing annoyance, please delete this discussion and accept my apology. I just don't understand how this page is remotely significant enough to be included in an "encyclopedia". Katavothron 03:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nowhere near the level of notability of ILOVEYOU and kin. Katavothron, you were right to nominate this. Hansonc, watch your mouth. humblefool&reg; 05:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Watch my mouth? Because I argue that deleting something based on extremely bad comparisons (like ILOVEYOU) is a bad idea?  Or did I touch a nerve with comment about how this actually exists unlike Pokemon garbage?  Hansonc 15:52, 1 November 2007 (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.