Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fully undetectable

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fully undetectable

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Merely two definitions, only one of which is even sourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete it's more appropriate as a dictionary entry over at Wikitionary or Urban Dictionary. Wikipedia main is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary Graywalls (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - as this seems to be a notable cryptography term. MenfesKidus40 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Clarityfiend (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See for instance, [1] and [2]. I am not sure yet if this is notable, but the terms fully undetectable and FUDing do exist in the field. It seems more like a marketing term for the usual packer, crypter, and morphic techniques malware writers use to "armor" their software. Perhaps a mention at Antivirus_software#Signature-based_detection or Computer_virus#Stealth_techniques is a possibility. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 09:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This doesn't rise much above WP:DICDEF and as the nom points out, conflates two separate uses of the term. And I'm not sure is an actual article could be written about either of them. Reyk _YO! 09:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- agreed with comments above. The article is more like a dictionary than encyclopedia - Jay (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2019 (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.