Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Police Pro (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The consensus is to do something with this material other than keeping it as a stand-alone article. If someone wants to merge it somewhere, drop a note on my talk page, and I'll userfy it for him or her. It's already mentioned in List of rogue security software, however, and an extended treatment in Rogue security software would indeed seem to be undue weight, so someone might want just to create a redirect from this title to the list article. Deor (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Windows Police Pro
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Most of the article is a how-to guide (not allowed), does not assert why this malware is notable. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The last AFD ended in KEEP, as people had established that Bleeping Computer was a reliable source, and their coverage of it made it notable, plus it mentioned in many other places as well. The virus was notable because of how much coverage it got.   D r e a m Focus  17:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The article does not reflect this alleged notability. ViperSnake151   Talk  23:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - software (rogue antivirus/malware) article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. This article was last afd'ed in 2009, when standards for reliable sources were more lax. The one independent ref is the Bleeping Computer article, a how-to on removal. How-to articles are not generally useful for establishing notability. In any case, one article is not sufficient to establish notability. A search turned up removal how-to's and forum posts but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC) [

 Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources:   The first paragraph of the article is: "Windows Antivirus Pro, also known as Windows Police Pro or ASC Antivirus, is the latest piece of rogue antivirus products that Microsoft has started tackling with its free Malicious Software Removal Tool security solution. Identified as TrojanDownloader:Win32/FakeScanti, the malicious code is an example of a fake antivirus, an application masquerading as a security solution. Just as other rogue antivirus programs, FakeScanti turns to a range of social engineering tricks in order to fool victims into paying for a license for a piece of software with no real functionality." Several other paragraphs about the virus follow. A list of reviews by Marius Oiaga is at http://linux.softpedia.com/editors/browse/marius-nestorWebCite. http://www.softpedia.com/editors/ has a list of editors and contributors. The editorial staff indicates that the source has received the editorial oversight necessary to pass Identifying reliable sources.  The syndicated "Propeller Heads" column notes: "You do have malicious software on your computer, and it's called Windows Police PRO. This putrid little program secretly installs itself on your computer and then tries to trick you into purchasing their virus removal tool by reporting bogus viruses. Programs like this are classified as malware: a broad category that includes viruses, bots and spyware. Whatever you do, don't fall for the ruse and provide them with your credit card number. If you already have, contact your bank and tell them that you have been scammed. Perhaps they can prevent the charge from going through. ... Then they will try to trick you into clicking an infected link that will download something like Windows Police PRO on your computer."  provided a Bleeping Computer article. According to the 2006 book "Rootkits For Dummies" published by John Wiley & Sons: "Our Rootkits For Dummies Technical Editor, Lawrence Abrams, owns the Bleeping Computer Web site &mdash; and he is very hands-on in administering its daily operation. Bleeping Computer boasts an expert staff, and within a very short time it has become one [of] the most active security forums on the Web." http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/about/ says: "When reviewing products, the editors and team members will always provide honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experiences on those topics or products." The "expert staff" and the "editors" indicate that the source has received the editorial oversight necessary to pass Identifying reliable sources. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Windows Police Pro to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)</ul>
 * Delete - it is just one of many fake antivirus programs, I don't see a particular notability for this one, it doesn't go about its malicious business any different from the rest. If it were the first, or the first to be spread widely, or the first to target a particular os, or did something unusual (like the one that pretends it's the FBI, claims you have been viewing illegal material, and issues you with a "fine" that must be paid to unlock your computer), then maybe some of that would be enough notability, if there were sources suggesting that. But it seems that there are not such sources, and the bleepingcomputer source says that it is just "from the same family as Windows Antivirus Pro" and came after it. However, maybe its name, and Windows Antivirus Pro, and the names of similar fake antivirus programs should be added to the Rogue security software article.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge with Rogue security software. It's just one of them run-of-the-mill trojans posing as antivirus software. As what Tiptoe said, unless if it had anything note-worthy or was covered in major news outlets like with WinFixer, I don't think this would be worthy of inclusion, at least for now. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep — 's extra sources seem raise this article past the WP:N threshold (although just barely). For sure, the article is a mess and the extra sources need to be integrated but we can fix this one and need not delete it. — m a k o ๛  18:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge per Tiptoe and Blakegripling. There just isn't enough to say about these malware programs individually to justify a separate page.  There would be very little left if all the HOWTO stuff was taken out, and virtually nothing beyond the generic description of spoof security software. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge per tiptoe and spinningspark - there isn't enough detail on this particular program to merit it's own page. Hustlecat do it! 21:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have found a fourth source: this articleWebCite by Microsoft staff member David Wood in Microsoft TechNet. The subject passes Notability. David Wood's article provides some history of the virus: "We first saw a variant of Win32/FakeScanti back in early March of this year, when it went by the name of ASC Antivirus. There was then very little activity on the FakeScanti front until late July, when we noticed a file, which we detect as TrojanDownloader:Win32/FakeScanti, downloading a new version of the scanner going by the name of Windows Antivirus Pro. This version was proactively detected by the signatures added in March. Since then there has been a steady stream of new files, but only one name change, to Windows Police Pro. Apart from the name change, the user interface, and even the list of alleged “malware” detected by this rogue, has remained identical:" This background information (which could be added to a "History" or "Background" section in this article) would violate Neutral point of view if the article is merged into Rogue security software, so I would recommend against mandating a merge at AfD. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Rogue security software. It might technically meet the GNG, but I think our readers are better served by having information about all of these malicious programmes in one place, rather than balkanised out all over the shop.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC).
 * Background information about Windows Police Pro could not be merged to Rogue security software without being undue weight. The readers would be best served by having 1) an article about Windows Police Pro and 2) a brief mention of Windows Police Pro in Rogue security software with a link to the Windows Police Pro article if readers want more information about it (for example, its background/history). Cunard (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or userfy As he closed the previous AfD, Beeblebrox said that although the article "needs a lot of work, that is not a reason to delete." I agree with that statement. However, clearly nobody has taken interest in improving the article, and it's still in as bad a shape as it was then, five years ago. The subject of the article hasn't gained any notability either; it's still just a run-of-the-mill piece of ransomware. I think it's time to either delete the article—which is nothing but a synopsis of the one source it's based on—or, if someone steps up to the plate and takes it upon him or herself to improve Windows Police Pro to the point where a third AfD nomination won't be warranted—to userfy it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added two reliable sources to the article that in addition to the Microsoft TechNet article clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Notability. Run-of-the-mill topics do not receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. AfD is not cleanup. Cunard (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Allow me to quote a portion of the general notability guideline that seems to be ignored here: "coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Two sources have now been added to the article, without changing its actual content; one of the sources is essentially an advertisement for Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool, the other is a clearly biased response to someone's question, given by a person that calls Windows Police Pro a "putrid little program;" neither of the two introduces any new information that could be used to expand the article beyond what it already is—a summary of the article that can be found at bleepingcomputer.com which is explicitly a how-to guide to removing Windows Police Pro from an infected computer. How-to manuals are not allowed on Wikipedia, much less their subpar summaries. If someone thinks s/he can improve Windows Police Pro to meet Wikipedia's standards—which I don't think is possible for this particular non-encyclopedic subject—s/he's more than welcome to try; I have no objections whatsoever to the article's userfication if a request for it is made. My primary recommendation, however, is to delete it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I do not see sufficient evidence of this article's subject's notability to warrant a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. KDS 4444  Talk  12:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the article. Information in the "History", "Infection symptoms", and "Virus removal" would be lost were the article to be merged and redirected to rogue security software. I therefore believe a merge would be against the encyclopedia's readers' best interests. Cunard (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition, a merge to rogue security software would not make sense. In its "See also" section, rogue security software has a link to List of rogue security software, where Windows Police Pro is already mentioned (along with about 300 other viruses). It is improbable to discuss in the rogue security software article Windows Police Pro or any of the other viruses in detail. Cunard (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete article because its another brick in the wall of thousands of similar not notable viruses... obviously it got coverage on websides about malware removings same as thousands of other similar not notable viruses... if you want example of notable viruss looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILOVEYOU okay? sorry, its not suiting encyuclopedia topic for standalone article... extraoirdinerily not encyclopedic subject needs extraordinery sourcing this one hasn't it 41.190.36.250 (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not seeing any policy-based arguments for deletion, and the forum for discussion of merge is the talk page of the article.  Articles don't have to show wp:notability, topics don't have to be "particularly notable", topics don't have to "gain" notability, there are sufficient sources to show that this is not a hoax or something made up by Wikipedia editors, WP:GNG does not exclude "how-to" sources, a previous AfD stipulated the presence of "decent reliable sources" and that article clean-up is not relevant for AfD, articles don't have to be cleaned up because they were previously at AfD, and I only see three "how-to" sentences which is fine if that is the consensus of the article content contributors.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2014 (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.