Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Java update virus

Java update virus

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

Contested prod. I'll give the same reasoning again:There is no such thing as the "Java update virus". The "fake software update" window is a fairly common trojan/malware delivery system, not a specific piece of software, has had no coverage in reliable sources other than in-passing "make sure you're updating Java from the correct site" mentions on tech blogs and the like, and certainly doesn't warrant an article of its own. There are (literally) millions of viruses, malware and trojans, and aside from those which have a genuinely significant economic or cultural impact Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to document them. The page creator admits that no sources exist (see the article talk page), but wants this article kept to "raise awareness of that virus causing a research group to carefully research how that virus works then they will create a reliable source for that article". I've tried to explain that this isn't how Wikipedia works, but with no apparent success. Mogism (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & WP:COMMONSENSE - Download off a non-official site - You 90% get a virus ..... It's common sense ... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sourcing. An individual virus is only notable if there's specific sourcing for that virus. This article is unsourced and so far no more than rumour and scaremongering. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting the article, it might be better to rename it and turn it into an article about all viruses that pretend to be a Java update and mention the spicific virus I was talking about somewhere in that article since it's such a powerful virus. There should also be a redirect from the old name of the article to the new name. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a how-to guide about some nonspecific nonnotable virus. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - combination of original research, no reliable sources, and how-to. As above, this article does not belong in wikipedia.Dialectric (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the talk page of that article, by using this article to raise awareness of that specific version of the virus that resembles a Java update, antimalware programmers will try desperately hard to invent an antimalware software that can even fully undo the effects of that specific virus that is much more powerful than the other viruses resembling a Java update. Furthermore, those people will be carefully researching how to fight against that virus putting what they discover about that virus into a scientific journal, then that scientific journal will be able to be used as a source for that article. By deleting that article, you would be causing a permanent problem of there being no long properly written article about that topic to save a temporary problem of it being unsourced. Other people will probably lengthen that article once that scientific journal gets made. Once that article gets deleted, I don't see any other way awareness of that virus could spread so much that it causes antimalware researches to make a scientific journal about that virus creating a sufficiently good source to recreate that deleted article. Blackbombchu (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]