Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EternalRocks worm

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 merge to EternalBlue. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 03:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EternalRocks worm

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or merge into EternalBlue or similar. Virus was incorrectly connected to WannaCry and is not specifically notable. Did not cause any significant damage, nor did it receive coverage OTHER than it using similar vulnerabilties to WannaCry. ZarosFlok (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oppose [1], [2] meets WP:GNG -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 23:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of those sources is calling it a "WannaCry successor", the other mentions it in the context of WannaCry, either way proving my point that it's not individually notable.

--ZarosFlok (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. - WP:GNG. also see [3], [4]. also, i feel that an independent page is supported per WP:PAGEDECIDE -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources you've posted and that I'm able to find through Google are all tech/security blogs, and they all link to the same sources, a single GitHub and a few cryptic twitter posts. This is radically different from WannaCry, which had loads of mainstream news coverage and well-documented accounts of the effects of the malware on companies and individuals. I'm aware an article can exist for something much smaller than WannaCry, but this is just the industry's blogs (of which there are literally hundreds, some duplicated) trying to squeeze a few more days of coverage out of the "malware scare". --ZarosFlok (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into EternalBlue. Concurring with ZarosFlok on this one. Barely covered → barely encyclopedic. Frevangelion (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.