Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIFTS.exe

: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 redirect to Norton AntiVirus#PIFTS.exe. And protect. What's not already there can be merged from history if desired.  Sandstein  16:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

=[[PIFTS.exe]]=

:{{la|PIFTS.exe}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|PIFTS.exe}})

A one-time software bug that got its own article? Really, are you kidding me? Even the mistaken belief that it was malware doesn't make this notable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete - The highest possible bar for inclusion of software bugs computer viruses, please. The last thing WP needs to do is encourage these idiots. Probably my weakest rationale in terms of policy, ever. Food for thought though, I hope. Carrite (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You seem to be confusing the concept of a software bug (an unintentional error by a well-meaning programmer) with a computer virus (a deliberately harmful piece of stand-alone software created by a programmer with ill intent). There are no "idiots" to be "encouraged" or "discouraged" regarding the former. 61.18.170.49 (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

:::: My bad. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Merge to Norton AntiVirus#PIFTS.exe whatever is left to merge, redirect and protect indefinitely so this all won't happen again. The incident requires mention, but not a separate article — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge & Redirect as per prior consensus. I agree with protect indefinitely for the same reason as above. We don't need to re-hash this multiple times. Things like this usually don't get more notable over time. Makyen (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment not sure we need to protect, just watchlist it and revert it back. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • An interesting issue: why are the Wikipedians so afraid of protection-related measures. Once redirected, this page shouldn't be edited without a good reason, so that all the further traffic in the foreseeable future will be reverted anyway. Then why should we waste editors' time, effort and watchlist space? What value can be defended by leaving this page unprotected? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Mainly the idea that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We start protecting everything, and it's not anymore. So, if we're gonna protect, make sure it's actually necessary. We wouldn't be here if this redirect had been protected, sure, but we also wouldn't be here if the AfD merge discussion people from before had watchlisted the page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This rationale works against protecting something that is generally expected to be edited without prior consensus (virtually everything). But this isn't the case of the discussed page, as it is supposed to stay a redirect until something else of the same name would replace it. As no editing is welcome here, no right is violated by protection. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

: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.