Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of obfuscators for .NET (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

List of obfuscators for .NET
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete As this article lacks an unbiased presentation of the topic and became a battlefield for different companies producing the obfuscation software. The reader may be misled by the article. eg (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Egubenya (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The content is not unbiased. Based on research it appears to favor specific offerings and is not an objective discussion of the overall software technology involved. There does not seem to be a way of addressing the objectivity issue without veering into marketing speak. I also think we're better off without it. - Bctwriter —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * weak delete I can see the value of this list and feature table to .NET developers. However that's not an encyclopedic value, it's transitory trade-press news reporting. I hope this finds a home, but I don't see that home as being on WP and with the unsourced state of this article, I'm not inclined to be lenient.
 * This might make a WP article if it was turned upside down. Turn it into an encyclopedic article on obfuscation for .NET, use the quite good explanation sections and then use the comparison table as no more than an illustration. It would need the technical features and aspects of .NET obfuscation to be sourced though. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I know there appears to be a lot written above, but once you discount all the SPAs and transient IPs (on both sides), there's not actually much here. Even the nomination is by a SPA. So, hoping another week will attract some more experienced editors. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've been keeping this list in as good a shape as I can, but the total lack of sourcing and the fact that none of the entries have any independent notabilty is making it very difficult. I think we're better off without it. - MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments in the previous AfD. Lists can list non-notable things, as long as the topic in general is notable per WP:CSC. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC) --How is the editorial guidance to be interpreted? WP:CSC suggests that a few non-notable items may be included, not virtually the entire the list as is the case here. "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses."EdBlatt (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't agree that none of the entries have any independent notability, see Dotfuscator for instance. Hancox (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — Hancox  (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . PS it's curious that the person who nominated this page for deletion is the same person who restored some content that was deleted a few days ago for being non-notable.
 * Delete This list mixes obfuscation techniques with other unrelated techniques including virtualization, merging, compression, etc. Importantly, there are no references on the page and it has been a free for all of commercial interests with non-validated claims. Gmt767 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — Gmt767 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Upon review, there is enough misinformation here that makes it appear it would be impossible to keep this up-to-date. It has already fallen far behind reality. Deletion is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.186.2 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Johngrant (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Delete. This listing sorely lacks reference information. Previous incarnations of this list have been appropriately deleted. For example see User:Scatophaga/Comparison of .NET obfuscators. Important note: The article below was not written by me. It was deleted (what a stupid action! This contains relevant information, at leat for me, seeking for something like this for a while) due to the following reasoning "This is an orphan article (So? Just because is "orphan" doesn't mean it's not interesting! Why those guys who delete other's work, are around? Bacause of this, I quit to create Wikipedia articles. I'm tired to see others change what I write, just because they don't understand, or they don't like the "style"), and it is simply a list displaying a grid.
 * Delete. This list does not seems accurate. The feature list of Wikipedia page does not reflect the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:820F:B300:4C5F:4813:4B18:DA59 (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Attempts to present a coherent article have been thwarted by commercial interests. Sadly the page includes many features that do not relate to Obfuscation (software) and almost all assertions are unreferenced (and based on my review, frequently erroneous). EdBlatt (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No links/other support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.33.73 (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsupported. Not a topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.71.57 (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I have seen this page come and go several times already and it is not improving. When the latest version was resurrected it seems its author did not bother to disclose that the prior version was deleted? The descriptors on this page are loosely explained and I started to build in better information. Now I see the article for deletion notation is up again and in considering the sorry state of the article, and in particular its continuing degradation the basic principles of wikipedia should be weighed, and there is no reason to retain this and many good reasons to delete it again. The primary reason I see is that the most all of the entries are not representative of a modern day obfuscator and the definition of the obfuscator is so contorted in the article components that it is potentially confusing to users.WindRest (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, promotional material, non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.38.199 (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:10, 28 August 2016 (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.