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 of the debate was no consensus reached, defaulting to keep Tznkai 11:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer viruses[edit]

It was a noble concept, but there have been too many computer viruses to list on one singular page since about 1992. Considering that there are at least 50,000 different malware families out there, it's probably best that they be kept as a category instead of a list. Trafton 05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: List format good, but needs bot help. I like what happened to the very first 'A' viruses in the listing: snippets of their articles (which usually don't have much information anyways) are in the list and the result is something I think is very pleasing to skim. It's just not nice to force editors to do the additional work of manually updating article info to the listing; this is something bot editors should be doing for us. If there is a virus listing at all, it also makes sense to break the list up into many small chunks by name, like what the Probert Encyclopedia does, again something for bots. No complete listing of any form of nastyware will ever be achieved, but maintaining some well-formed documentation in list format is something I believe is not only interesting to the casual reader but also can be implemented gracefully with a little disciplined help from bots. If it's needed, I'd be happy to help with getting the bots started. A-Day 07:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It would be a shame to throw away all the hard work that went into making this list. I use it to know what articles to write next. Researching the Abraxas (computer virus) has revealed a very interesting history of virus families, writers, and creation tools, though I wouldn't consider Abraxas particularly noteworthy in terms of global threat or media attention. This list should be used as a guide for creating several smaller and more manageable lists. Eventually, I see this article linking only to the smaller lists. A-Day 00:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful list. Only the more notable viruses should be included, not all 50,000 or so --Revolución (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I think I must be coming down with something. This is the second consecutive list I have voted keep on. :) This list covers an important topic, a topic for which I think it's important to have a lot of info on. Reyk 21:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a list better served by a category. Tim Pierce 22:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How does a category allow you to quickly summarize each virus? How does a category allow you to list viruses that don't yet have articles? A category is not enough. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-2 02:02
Keep per above. -- JJay 23:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ditto. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 23:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replace with category. --LesleyW 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How does a category allow you to quickly summarize each virus? How does a category allow you to list viruses that don't yet have articles? A category is not enough. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-2 02:02
Delete, replace with category. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 23:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How does a category allow you to quickly summarize each virus? How does a category allow you to list viruses that don't yet have articles? A category is not enough. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-2 02:02
Keep, a category is inaproporate, wikipedia has lists. Lists give reader lots of useful information such as what os the virus runs on, an average computer virus on that list is not article worthy how ever mention of many of them no a list is human knowlege. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 01:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: a list is more appropriate than a category when the list itself has some meaningful order or structure that can't be communicated in a category. I don't think that's the case here. If there's a strong desire to see viruses broken down by operating system, we can always make subcategories for "Windows viruses," "Mac viruses," etc. It doesn't seem to me that this list of viruses differs a great deal from a virus category page. Tim Pierce 12:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I was active on that page there were information such as what OS the virus ran on, when was it created, how "bad" it is, who is the creator (or his nick) (if known) etc. The only reason that list is in a pathetic shape is because I am not done with it and I forgot about it. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cool Cat^Talk|@: LOL, and hence the need for a nice bot or two to consistently fill in the information required on such a table. Tim Pierce: As for breaking up viruses up into categories by OS and such, that's already done, as I'm sure you've noticed. What we don't have (but I think we should) is a nice quick-reference kind of listing that's useful to the casual reader, filled with attributes for each virus that you'd see in the table on a virus page such as this. Again, I hope the bots ( that haven't been written yet ;-) ) can provide the order/structure that's required of the list, but deleting it now seems a bit premature. Thanks for your opinion though, the list does need a lot of work :-) A-Day 02:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --if it is too big, it can be broken down alphabetically or by some other scheme, but that is no reason to delete. Danny 03:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Too long" is not a valid delete rationale. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-31 03:54
No on the contrary it is never a valid rationale unless one suggests breaking articles which is generly a bad practice for lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool Cat (talk • contribs)
Delete. Caterogies exist. Pilatus 21:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How does a category allow you to quickly summarize each virus? How does a category allow you to list viruses that don't yet have articles? A category is not enough. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-2 02:02
Delete, open ended and very hard to maintain. Category should be enough here. Pavel Vozenilek 23:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How does a category allow you to quickly summarize each virus? How does a category allow you to list viruses that don't yet have articles? A category is not enough. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-2 02:02
Keep- A lot of work went into creting this article, and because it provides useful information, I think it should not be deleted. Even if outdated it should remain as a useful reference. --Christopher 01:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no way the list will ever be maintained. Vegaswikian 04:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mirror Vax 07:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide your reasoning. A-Day ^(c)_(t) 07:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup, has potential for good article, takes a while to load and the table is a little messy (suggest breaking it down and reformatting the table).--Robert Harrison^{talk contrib} 14:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup. It would be a shame to simply throw this away. As a counter to the category: Wikipedia needn't be a comprehensive virus database (and what are notability criteria for computer virusses?) squell 18:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, no official criteria have been established, but I think 'notability' becomes obvious when one is trying to find information about the virus. Compare A-403, Abraxas, and SQL slammer. I think if we can just 'go by the sources', establishing artificial 'notability criteria' on our own probably isn't needed. A-Day ^(c)_(t) 19:45, 3 January 2006 (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.