Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Police Pro

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 Keep. Article has some decent reliable sources. Although it needs a lot of work, that is not a reason to delete. Also, although this is not simply a vote, I note that no one besides the nominator has explicitly stated they feel it merits deletion. Any merge or redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Police Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non notable software. Article contains long lists of registry keys and files that software creates, which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Possible COI, as user has only created articles on the subject of malware that use the same website as a source. The source provided is not reliable. Netalarmtalk 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 21:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 00:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This virus gets plenty of mention, along with others of its kind, in the media. http://www.softsailor.com/how-to/6793-how-to-remove-windows-police-pro-virus-windows-police-pro-virus-removal.html Did you bother to Google? [1] Over four million results! And you can spot Bleeping Computer and other reliable sources straight away. Dream Focus 22:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions says at WP:GOOGLEHITS, simply having google results doesn't make it notable (or not notable). Are there reliable sources to establish notability? Wikipedia is not a howto. tedder (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the virus is notable, they don't just talk about it, they tell you how to remove it in the same article. And as I said, Bleeping Computer's results showed up, they a well established reliable source commonly referenced on Wikipedia. I added two reliable sources to the article. Also, Wikipedia arguments to avoid in deletion, is just an essay. Anyone can publish an essay saying anything, it totally meaningless. Google results show that over four million people are talking about it, so obviously its something we need an article about. This virus affects a lot of people. Dream Focus 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with WinFixer --HamburgerRadio (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is there a general page about this kind of hoax anti-spyware or anti-virus malware? Redirection of the individual titles to such a page would appear to be the best option to me, perhaps with headings for the more notable individual ones. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there's Rogue security software. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Methinks I see the problem. The Rogue security software page has a long list of some bluelinks and some redlinks inviting the creation of articles on each of these variations on a theme. I'm not sure that individual instances of this sort of scam really rate separate encyclopedia articles, even if reputable sites document the malware status of each individual name and offer instructions on getting rid of them. Few of them would appear to have independent historical or technical significance in their own right. What happens to this one probably should to the other one now under consideration, and all the rest of these as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This certainly destroyed my computer, ended up having to get a new one. Of all these rogue softwares I've encountered, this was the one I was unable to remove. The article is horribly written, but I'll try to improve it. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 00:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that you were affected by this piece of malware doesn't mean it should be included in Wikipedia. Just a note, you'd have to find reliable sources to prove notability. I'm thinking this article should be redirected? Netalarmtalk 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Right, but I am trying to find sources. Just give me time. :) A redirect would not work. I really don't think this is very similar to WinFixer. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 23:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bleeping Computer has made this an independent article, and the article meets WP:NOT and three core content policies. I've just added a category by using HotCat to make the article more complete. By the way, they're more and more Wikipedians nominate articles for deletion since they regard them "non-notable", but in fact have certain notability. --RekishiEJ (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RekishiEJ's solid arguments. If Bleeping Computer has made this an independent article, that's almost sufficient evidence of notability by itself in my book. And, as RekishiEJ wrote, the article complies with Wikipedia's policies as well. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2009 (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.