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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LizaMoon[edit]

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

This malware caused a brief scare back in the spring but does not appear to have any lasting notability as it is apparently quite easy to keep it off your personal computer even if you had contact with an infected website. It got a bit of press at the time, it died off quickly, and there is no indication that it had any real impact in the field of internet security. While it sounds impressive that in supposedly infected a million websites, that is in reality only a very small portion of the entire web. An earlier proposed deletion was declined by a user who apparently felt that them looking at the page proved it was notable [1] Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the record, I created the article. There are loads of independent articles about this all over the web, during the period of the outbreak. Computer viruses are not generally long-lived; the notability here comes not from the number of infections and speed at which it spread. For a virus or worm to make popular press is unusual in the first place, and the extent of coverage is self evident, IMO. — brighterorange (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic appears to pass WP:GNG, per several reliable sources in the article and those available by internet searches. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 23:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have mentioned WP:NOTNEWS in my nomination. I am aware that it got significant press attention right after it came to light, but that attention quickly faded as news outlets realized they were making a big deal out of malware that only a moron who gave it permission four times to invade their PC would ever get infected by it. A flash in the pan that was all sizzle and no steak, and a panic that was forgotten as quickly as quickly as it came on. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to insult people like that. Obviously thousands of people were infected by this, and you shouldn't be calling them "morons". Dream Focus 22:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you give an unknown piece of software that randomly approaches you on the internet permission, not once but four times, to come on inside your memory and make itself at home you are a moron. You could substitute "idiot" or "dumbass" in there if you prefer, but anyone who fell for this at this late dat in history is obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage in reliable sources. Dream Focus 22:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per my above remarks regarding NOTNEWS, all the sources currently being used are from the first two weeks of April of this year. I have yet to see any substantive mention of this malware from any date before or after that period, and nothing whatsoever to indicate it had any lasting impact in the field of internet security. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very Notable, It is important to keep the public informed on scareware, I lost a laptop due to a similar virus program, this article has references and citations and is long enough, I feel it is a signifigant problem, that should be noted. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to/create List of malware. Worth mentioning, but lack of long-lasting effects means a standalone page is unneccessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 16 October 2011 (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.