Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dotfuscator

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. J04n(talk page) 19:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dotfuscator

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retain as notable Updated version reflects reliable sources. As part of Microsoft's Visual Studio, Dotfuscator is very widely known to the .NET community Gmt767 (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please retain the article as the product is clearly notable. Dotfuscator ships in-the-box with Visual Studio and is on millions of desktop computers. Regards, Daniel Vaughan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbvaughan (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found only a few links but nothing convincing for this applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (despite what looks like WP:COI/WP:SPA editing): A free version has been incorporated under licence into Visual Studio since 2003, and if that were all, it could redirect to Microsoft Visual Studio. The separate professional version, however, means that a standalone article appears warranted. Incorporation into a company article might be an option except that the product appears far more notable than the company. Review 1. Review 2. Review 3. Review 4 Relevant article. In a number of books including this and this. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will also go to the compromise of Drafting for now to allow better time and information as there's still questionability here. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Obfuscation and .NET". The Journal of Object Technology. Vol. 4, No. 4, May–June 2005. pp. 79-83.
MSDN Magazine. Miller Freeman. pp. 11-12. (subscription required)
Reversing: Secrets of Reverse Engineering. John Wiley & Sons.
"Review: PreEmptive Way To Obfuscate .Net Apps". CRN Magazine
Windows Developer Power Tools. O'Reilly Media.
"Dotfuscator expands its functionality". InfoWorld.
Visual Basic 2008 For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons.
Professional Visual Studio 2010. John Wiley & Sons.

Keep Ditto above keeps' reasos. Aoziwe (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2016 (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.