Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinZix


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WinZix

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Un-notable compression software. Page seems more like an attack on the software. Even if the software is a virus, I could find no good sources for it, again seems to push the notability scale even as a virus. I removed some sources as most were from a forum. Spigot Map  18:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

reply: The problem is not that the software itself is a virus, the makers of that software try to fool as many people as possible to install their software so they can get advertising revenue through (hard to uninstall) adware. The proof here is that v1 of their file format did not compress anything. This wikipedia page is usefull to warn other people about this obviously bad piece of software, only aimed at easy money for the developers. The software has no added value for users at all. Sucker_pvn 23:06 30 August 2007


 * Comment, Wikipedia is not for warning people of malicious software. It's an encyclopedia consisting of notable articles. Can you assert the notability of the software? Spigot  Map  21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

reply 2: Wikipedia is an objective encyclopedia, and there is not one reference I find online praising the wonders of the .zix file format and the winzix program. Everybody is discouraging it's use, just like this article claims. It is an objective representation of what it stands for. The fact that the article describes the bad features of this software does not mean that it's intended as a cheap shot to discredit it, it's just the reality. Not agreeing with this notion does not advance this (still correct) article on wikipedia. Sucker_pvn 00:40 31 August 2007


 * Do you care to point me to a reliable source that says this? Other then virus reports, which don't make it notable, there's millions of viruses. Spigot  Map  21:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

reply 3:

Again, ignore the virus reports. These are not relevant at all! Please stop using this virus reference as an argument.

"Once WinZix is installed on your computer, it can be rather difficult to completely remove, as uninstalling WinZix through your control panel will still leave the adware on your system. Our advice is to not install the WinZix software. If you know how to remove the adware, please let us know below." http://www.dotwhat.net/lang_eng/files_z/extension_zix/id_8674/

"Warning:: WinZix has been known to install spyware on computers and may not compress files. Therefore, using WinZix is not recommended and you install it at your own risk. If you receive a "compressed" ZIX file you are advised to warn the sender and ask them to resend the file in a more common format (for example ZIP or RAR archive file format)." http://www.file-extensions.org/zix-file-extension-winzix-compressed-archive-file

"WinZix is a potentially unwanted application that may download another programs or rogue security software on to the computer." http://www.precisesecurity.com/blogs/2007/07/13/winzix/

"Winzix is a potentially unwanted program that may download other programs on to the computer. It may track online habits." http://www.emsisoft.net/fr/malware/?Adware.Win32.Winzix

Sucker_pvn 01:20 31 August 2007 (located in Belgium, which explains the different timezone)


 * You still fail to assert the significance of this software. There is malware all over the internet. Where are the newslines, reviews by reliable critics, etc, that will show that this program caused a notable impact on the world? Spigot  Map  22:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

reply 4:

The problem here is that this 'new' compression format is being used in a lot of p2p download networks (such as bittorrent), many users doing this are being vulnerable to this deceitfull practice. (Many of these users download illegal software/movies/music, but does that mean this wikipedia article does not have the right to exist?)

Are you saying that this winzix article is a lie? Because it urges people to be wary of it, this article needs to be deleted? Can you prove that the info mentioned in this winzix article is false?

I see no reason to delete this wikipedia article, since it objectively mentions the commotion about this 'revolutionary' new format.

If I didn't know better I would start to think you have some interest in keeping the commotion surrounding this file format hidden from the general public. If the article is completely wrong or totally useless I would agree to delete this article. This does not seem to be the case, so can you please leave the article as it is right now? Sucker_pvn 01:40 31 August 2007


 * You have STILL failed to reference how this software is "revolutionary". Wikipedia is not here to warn people about viruses. Please provide a source to assert the notability of this software. A source to show that it is indeed revolutionary and notable. The fact that it is used in P2P and potentially is a virus does not make it notable. Also, sign your posts with four tildes ~, to stop sinebot from signing your posts. Spigot  Map  22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

reply 5:

I told you before to ditch the 'virus' remarks, as these are not relevant.

Who decides what information needs to be inserted into wikipedia and what does not? I can not give you a notable reference to the information in this article. Why do I need to?

Many users (see the history of the winzix page) felt a need to document the information regarding the winzix software and the .zix file. Is is not so that wikipedia lives from these contributions to gather as much information about various topics in the world? Why must this page be deleted, because you think nobody cares or is involved?

You have thus far not been able to discredit any information mentioned in the article, and yet you insist in getting the page removed. So what if it might not concern 98% of the population? Do I need to search for articles which are 100 times less popular/relevant/... ?

Or does wikipedia only allow revolutionary and/or notable information to be added? The article contains usefull information for people who run into the winzix software andd .zix files, if anybody has more positive reflections they can add those to the article (such as it is accustomed with the entire wikipedia philosophy), so I do not think deletion is necessairy.

Sucker_pvn Sucker pvn 23:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer to "Does Wikipedia only allow notable content to be added?" is infact, yes. Please see WP:NOTABLE for the guidelines. As far as who decides what goes in to wikipedia? The editors. Editors just like me and you, which is precisely why this AfD is here, so other editors can see the article and make a concensus. Spigot  Map  23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

reply 6:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTABLE: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media" => I gave you plenty of sources, and the article itself has some as well.

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." => I guess all those independent links I gave are good enough for you?

(I could go and try to give examples for all the details on the notable page, but I'm not interested in doing this right now.

Bottom line: The winzix software and .zix files do exist in the real world, information can be found on multiple sources.

Somebody might come into contact with .zix files or the software itself, they might 'google' it and find the wikipedia entry about it. It gives the person some usefull information. And there we have a reason to leave this page right where it is.

If the page would be deleted this user would find no information regarding this subject at all. I just did a google voor 'winzix' and I got 190.000 results. Therefore I see a reason to keep winzix as an article on wikipedia.

I believe that keeping this article is more beneficial for wikipedia (and the general public) than deleting it. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be covering everything usefull in the world that other people might want to find out about? (Even if the information about it seems to be negative?)

This seems to be a battle between us about this (even before this deletion page, which can be seen on the history page of the article), but an independent reviewer should aid us here and help with this discussion. This is going nowhere.

Sucker_pvn Sucker pvn 23:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, you must have not even read WP:NOTABLE. I'm not going to read it to you word for word. It's not "Satisfy one guideline and it's okay". It's "Satisfy all guidelines, then it's notable". Ready WP:RS While you're at it as well. Spigot  Map  01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.  -- KTC 01:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep (although it appears to need significant cleanup and editing). Symantec recognizes this software as a problem and appears to be including it in their virus definitions.  There are quite a few Google hits which seem to attest to some level of notability.  However, I would not shed any tears if this article were deleted as the notability is definitely borderline at best.  --ElKevbo 03:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I'm sure it's a problem if it's on your computer, but I'm not sure it's in fact notable. Symantec lists a large number of things as problems, but unless they're more significant than just being a problem then they're not really notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

When I do a google search for 'winzix', the wikipedia page is the 4th link that's presented to me. (I'm located in Belgium so google also presents some local findings in dutch.) This means that a lot of other sites on the world link to this article, and so it seems the article is relevant to quite a lot of people. Therefore I would be dissapointed to see this article go. Sucker_pvn Sucker pvn 08:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it actually means that. Google works in a more complex way, at least as far as it's ever been explained to me. Secondly, there are only - in raw numbers - 186000 pages which Google throws up when I type that word in, and a handful on the first couple of pages actually seem to be people meaning to say "Winzip" and just not looking carefully enough when they type, so there's probably a fair bit less that's actually being said about it. Thirdly, while Google hits are an interesting statistic to play with, are there any non-trivial mentions establishing notability? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Needs to be expanded and re-writted. Noteability established here by p2pnet.net. example of where this article is being used. Reference to warning/Malware  Fosnez 10:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not a notable product. There are thousands of malware programs in the world. --Agamemnon2 10:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete While the product certainly exists and is referred to as malware or spyware by various reliable sources, I would expect to see articles on internet news sites, online security alerts, and so on, for any notable virus-type program - and I can see no assertion of notability for this particular one.  Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 21:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's existence and status as possible malware is not in doubt, but it does not meet notability as there are no reliable sources. No coverage indicates nothing significant to distinguish this malware from others.  Contrast this with Comet Cursor. -- Whpq 20:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, from 15 mins of google searching, it looks like the security companies are starting to keep an eye on this and our entry is probably accurate. However we dont have good secondary sources, and this is not a novel piece of malware.  This would be a really interesting WikiNews article. John Vandenberg 04:46, 7 September 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.