Windows Police Pro – Restore history and redirect to WinFixer. The conversation here has wandered into all sorts of directions, but there is pretty clear consensus here that restore and redirect is the right thing to do. – -- RoySmith (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the content to WinFixer here. Cunard (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Police Pro (2nd nomination) was closed as "delete". Although I disagree with this assessment of the consensus, I will not be challenging the close. I am instead challenging the closing admin's refusal to restore the article's history under a redirect to WinFixer.

The closing admin discovered that Windows Police Pro was noted in the WinFixer article as an alternative name. This is supported by a reliable source. http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/article-5-software-titles-you-should-definitely-not-install says, "WinFixer goes by many names, titles that sound much like genuine security suites. These include WinAntiSpyware, AVSystemCare, WinAntiSpy and Windows Police Pro. There are among 20 other given names for WinFixer."

I asked the closing admin to restore the article under the redirect so its contents can be merged to WinFixer. I know the information in Windows Police Pro is useful because I rewrote the article. The closing admin declined to restore the article's history under the redirect. His userfication suggestion is not helpful because as I noted in a similar case at User talk:TParis/Archive 14#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad:

I would not support userfication or moving it to the draft namespace. ... Giving attribution for a selective merge is required by the guideline Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright. I would rather link to the article rather than a draft, which if not worked on would eventually would violate WP:STALEDRAFT.

My rewrite of the article incorporated nontrivial content from the article's previous editors so attribution is required.

I ask the DRV community to restore the article's history under the redirect.

Cunard (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My discussion with the closing admin (link)

Hi Deor. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Police Pro (2nd nomination) as "delete" on 15 November 2014. I think a close as "no consensus" would have been more accurate. The sources Dream Focus (talk · contribs) and I provided clearly demonstrated that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Two merge arguments:

"There just isn't enough to say about these malware programs individually to justify a separate page. There would be very little left if all the HOWTO stuff was taken out, and virtually nothing beyond the generic description of spoof security software." – this "merge" argument was refuted by my rewrite of the article and my explanation that reliably sourced, encyclopedic information would be lost in a merge.
"It might technically meet the GNG, but I think our readers are better served by having information about all of these malicious programmes in one place, rather than balkanised out all over the shop." – this was refuted by my undue weight argument here that you mentioned in your close.

These two merge comments thought Windows Police Pro should be covered on Wikipedia beyond just a listing in List of rogue security software. The current situation results in no coverage of Windows Police Pro on Wikipedia, which is against their wishes. I interpret their comments as supporting retention of the material over deletion.

The editors supporting deletion mostly did not make policy-based arguments so should not be given much weight. Their weak arguments were addressed by Unscintillating (talk · contribs)'s strong refutation here.

Thank you for your consideration. Cunard (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Well, I obviously disagree with your reading of the AfD; as I said in the close, "The consensus is to do something with this material other than keeping it as a stand-alone article," and I see no reason to change that interpretation of the discussion. Not everything that may satisfy the GNG needs a separate article, as WP:GNG itself says ("... significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article ..."), and in this case the consensus was, I think, that the topic doesn't merit one.

One thing that I have noticed is that the WinFixer article says (in note 1) that "Windows Police Pro" is another name for WinFixer. I don't know enough about the topic to determine whether that's the case, but if it is, you (or someone else) may want to take up the offer of userfication I made in the close, with an eye to merging some of the material there. Alternatively, someone may want to redirect the title there. If you don't find either of those options attractive, I guess the next stop is DRV. Deor (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good find. http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/article-5-software-titles-you-should-definitely-not-install says, "WinFixer goes by many names, titles that sound much like genuine security suites. These include WinAntiSpyware, AVSystemCare, WinAntiSpy and Windows Police Pro. There are among 20 other given names for WinFixer."

Please undelete Windows Police Pro and redirect it to WinFixer. Please also add a followup note to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Police Pro (2nd nomination) pointing to this discussion to explain to anyone reading the AfD why the page has been undeleted. Cunard (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to undelete the article's history if nothing is to be merged, Cunard. Just go to Windows Police Pro and create the redirect. Deor (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of history undeletion under a redirect was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect (permanent link). The encyclopedia does not benefit from keeping the history of Windows Police Pro deleted. Windows Police Pro has good sources and content that any editor could merge to WinFixer. That should be sufficient reason to restore the history and update the AfD with a link to this discussion. Cunard (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: After consultation with a more experienced admin, I've decided to let my close stand. You can create a redirect, I will userfy the article for you (if you think the material would provide useful hints for expanding some other article), or you can take the matter to DRV. Deor (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent DRVs about restoring article histories under redirects: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 28#Match World Cup annual event articles, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad.
Recent discussion: Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect (permanent link).
Cunard (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore history. The closing admin's comment—"If someone wants to merge it somewhere, drop a note on my talk page, and I'll userfy it for him or her."—does not appear to be consistent with our attribution policies. The history can, and needs to be, kept underneath the redirect in case any of it is to be merged, so that the original contributors can be attributed. As a broader point, unless there is good reason to delete content from history (copyvio, BLP etc), deleting the history underneath a redirect is unnecessary. Recent DRVs confirm this to be the view of the community. Furthermore, when people !vote to "delete" an article at AfD, what they're usually arguing, in substance, is not for the technical act of deleting the article and its history, but for the substantive result of removing a stand-alone article. A consensus based on that substantive result does not preclude the creation of a redirect in place of the article. Nor does it ordinarily preclude the restoration of the article's history behind that redirect. Substance over form is the key. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very insightful analysis, which is written much better than I could have worded it. Cunard (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore history for exactly the reasons given by Mkativerata. Thincat (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore history as a not unreasonable request, but at the same time I object to User:Cunard speculating as to my "wishes" and using those in an argument to which I was not notified. If they were interested in getting my support for a particular course of action, they should have approached me first. The user should also be aware that merely stating a disagreement to an opinion on a subjective subject is not "refutation", to misquote John Cleese, it is at best "contradiction" and should be treated as such by closing admins. In short, the restoration should be accompanied by a vigourous trouting. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Police Pro (2nd nomination):
Merge to Rogue security software. It might technically meet the GNG, but I think our readers are better served by having information about all of these malicious programmes in one place, rather than balkanised out all over the shop. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It is an accurate representation to say that "the current situation [that] results in no coverage of Windows Police Pro on Wikipedia" is "against [the] wishes" of an editor who wrote "Merge to Rogue security software" instead of "Redirect" or "Delete".
An unrebutted "contradiction" that invalidates another argument is a "refutation".
To avoid confusion, I will notify you in the future if I mention your AfD comments to a closer.
Cunard (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got nothing to add to Mkativerata's cogent analysis, with which I totally agree.—S Marshall T/C 10:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (to "no consensus"). There was consensus "to do something", as per the closing statement, but there was not consensus to delete. Reading the discussion along the lines "delete" or "not delete", there is certainly a strong current of support for "not delete" options, and therefore it was wrong for the closer to delete. Instead, the closer should have closed as "no consensus" and at most redirected "Rogue security software" as an editorial action supported by the consensus "to do something". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the closer's statement, "If someone wants to merge it somewhere, drop a note on my talk page, and I'll userfy it for him or her" sounds encouragement of sloppy WP:Copyrights compliance. If someone makes *any* use of a deleted page in merging content elsewhere, then all authors of the deleted page require attribution, and this is best achieved by redirecting with mention of of the redirected page in the merging edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the closer of the AfD, I have no comment on this DRV other than that I certainly was not intending any "encouragement of sloppy WP:Copyrights compliance". If a merge had indeed taken place after userfication, I would obviously expect the userfied article (and its history) to be returned to mainspace as a redirect to the article to which the content had been merged, with appropriate explanations. The reasons I declined to reclose the AfD, undelete the article, and redirect it myself—which is what Cunard was requesting—were mainly that (1) there was in the AfD no support for, indeed no mention of, redirection to WinFixer as a possible outcome and (2) I was not, and am still not, sure that Windows Police Pro and WinFixer are identical bits of malware, despite Cunard's single source. To undelete the article (not justified, in my opinion by the AfD discussion) and redirect it on my own account to a target not mentioned in the discussion was more than I was willing to do without further community discussion. Deor (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect target well mentioned in the AfD was Rogue security software. Deor's rationale to hesitate sounds reasonable. Maybe Cunard can explain better? Of course he did not intend encouragement of sloppiness, but better expression is always possible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I argued against a merge/redirect to Rogue security software at the AfD here. The closing admin accepted this argument, writing in the close, "an extended treatment in Rogue security software would indeed seem to be undue weight, so someone might want just to create a redirect from this title to the list article".
After the AfD was closed, the closing admin discovered that Windows Police Pro was noted in the WinFixer article as an alternative name, which is supported by a reliable source:
Long, Daniel (2009-10-02). "Fake Antivirus: 5 software titles you should definitely NOT install". PC & Tech Authority. nextmedia. Archived from the original on 2014-12-02. Retrieved 2014-12-02.
2) WinFixer

How it works: Frequently launches pop-ups that offer trial versions of anti-virus suites that can scan machines for non-existent infections. To remove the fake Trojan, users must purchase the program.

Threat value: Used mainly to extort users through credit card fraud.
Also Known as: WinFixer goes by many names, titles that sound much like genuine security suites. These include WinAntiSpyware, AVSystemCare, WinAntiSpy and Windows Police Pro. There are among 20 other given names for WinFixer.
I agree with Deor that Windows Police Pro and WinFixer likely are not "identical bits of malware". That the reliable source says WinFixer goes by many titles—including Windows Police Pro—indicates instead that Windows Police Pro is a variant of WinFixer. Cunard (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.