Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of obfuscators for .NET

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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of obfuscators for .NET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · for deletion/List of obfuscators for .NET)

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

This article should be deleted because it is not notable. While it purports to represent a topic, the boundaries of the topic are arbitrary and not defined in any reputable source. NCSwampDogs (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per this and WP:WIRED. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the cited Wired Magazine is "an unassailable obfuscation scheme", which is unrelated to the "List of obfuscators for .NET". The "List of obfuscators for .NET" page has no content that relates to the Wired Magazine article. Another wiki page Obfuscation (software) does relate to the Wired Magazine article; such article is not labeled AfD.[[User

NCSwampDogs|NCSwampDogs]] (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable.Andersonmyrtle (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Andersonmyrtle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacking notability.Jasminealgonquin98 (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Jasminealgonquin98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The list itself was previously deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of .NET obfuscators. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete List is mostly marketing. Full of outdated and inaccurate information. emadari —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— emadari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why was the wiki-creator of this article not notified of this AfD? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
  • I'd only created the article as a redirect to another, and 12 years ago at that, so I don't mind. In any case, I have no opinion on whether the article as it stands should stay or go. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is a list with information which at best could be acceptable as is, but the information and sources is still actually questionable for keeping as its own article thus Delete at least for now and then evaluate if this can in fact be its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 25 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.