Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete, then create a redirect to copy protection. bainer (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Software protection

Highly biased article by the creator of EXECryptor, focuses primarily on that product. With the advert removed we have a dicdef for an obvious term. If someone feels like writing a proper article right now I'll withdraw the nom, but in the mean time I don't think we should leave spam lying about. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless rewritten JPD (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the article history, and then Redirect to Copy protection. Crotalus horridus 16:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete shameless advertising as it stands. CarbonCopy 16:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, then redirect, per Crotalus. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect (deleting first if desired) to Snake oil... I mean Copy protection. — Haeleth Talk 21:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad that infringes a Transmeta trademark, and redirect to Copy protection. Gazpacho 12:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Hard to see how a trademark infringment occurs here; trademark protection is very much different from copyright protection. Trademark protection is intended to prevent someone from passsing off one product as another, and in no way prevents mention or use of the trademark in an encyclopedia article (unless Wikipedia was trying to pass itself of as another enclopedia...) Trademarks even frequently appear in advertising by competitors! I really wish "copyright violation" "trademark infrigement" "privacy violation" were not bandied around so much to justify deletes or as disguised objections to content. CarbonCopy 21:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Crotalus horridus. Stifle 23:41, 11 December 2005 (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.