Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-tamper software

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. Thanks everyone for contributing and please remember to assume good faith with my closure. SarahStierch (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-tamper software[edit]

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

Poorly sourced; incoherent and incohesive; little value for readers. Perhaps not worth trying to salvage prior to a complete rewrite. Ringbang (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOTCLEANUP. Clearly a notable topic. We did and do have worse-quality articles hanging out in mainspace. It could use more concrete examples though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poor encyclopedic value, even if the article passes through an overhaul I think that its content is not appropriate for WP, I bet there are articles which are better suitable for such a content or part of it instead of this type of software having its own article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT//WP:Just unencyclopedic argument. This is clearly a legitimate academic (and practical) field of study in computer science/security as a simple search in GS shows [1]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the nom seems to suggest this is a case for WP:TNT, but I'm not entirely convinced. It is obviously a notable field, and the question is can it be salvaged and rewritten or is it better to be rewritten from the ground up. I tend to side with the salvage, and hence my !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although that was before User:Someone not using his real name endeavoured a vigorous revision spree. This article has been a spam magnet for a while; therefore, I nominated it with a WP:TNT philosophy since I didn't expect a timely rewrite. Even when spam isn't a problem, I favour deletion for articles that are worthless without a rewrite, because not only do they waste readers' time, they attract attention away from better resources due to Wikipedia's prominence in search results. Ringbang (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: after the revisions, do you still favour deletion, or are you withdrawing? Not pressuring for either, I was just unsure what your stance was after this past comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After some fact-checking with the references provided (save one that's paywalled), I think the article is now worth saving. I don't contest the notability of the topic, and the article is now in a decent position for further improvement—thanks to User:Someone not using his real name's efforts! Ringbang (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that the original reasoning falls under WP:NOTCLEANUP more than not. Kudos to Someone for the revamp. Looking at the sources and beyond, I think the term itself is concrete and notable enough in the comp sci field to warrant an article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:06, 24 December 2013 (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.