Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X64dbg

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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X64dbg

[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)

No evidence of notability, sources are primary or passing mentions, notability tag removed without improvements. Fram (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this article is considered a candidate for deletion when similar debugging software like OllyDbg or Valgrind do not have this warning, despite all of the references being very similar in how they are listed, and being covered by news articles the same way. I don't see how it is a passing mention when the softwares are the primary talking point of the articles referenced. Even before the page was made, there were multiple different wikipedia pages which already pre-linked x64dbg, aswell as a work in progress draft, and the person who originally put the warning on the page had removed it. Partey Lover (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles may have escaped scrutiny, or have better sources, or have better sources available (but not in the article). This discussion deals only with this one article though. The 4 current sources are the software's homepage and Github (both don't help for notability), and then this, which is not a page or section about X64dbg, but just someone using it, and this which is clearly a passing mention with no info or discussion about the software. To establish notability, we need significant, indepth coverage in reliable, independent sources. None of the four sources used offers that combination. Fram (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first article had a section for x64dbg and included multiple screenshots from it as well as a near 400 word long tutorial on how to use it, I don't see how an essays worth of text is considered a passing mention at all. Partey Lover (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source[1], a blog / guest column, is not about x64dbg, it uses it as a step in a much longer story. It doesn't have "an essays worth of text" about x64dbg at all. Fram (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a large section of an article about reverse engineering, the section specifically documents parts of x64dbg in the context of how you would practically use it with reverse engineering. How do you classify this as someone "just using it" when it is a vital part of a demonstration, that's not how articles work, if he was "just using it" for himself it would not be documented on an article. Also, getting into the specifics here is completely unnecessary, but 400 words is absolutely enough to be considered an essay. Partey Lover (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As said above, the first article is questionably as it is a corporate blog that gives nearly no information about the software, thus giving less than one unit of notability. My bare minimum is two units.
As a result, we have nearly no information to write about except summarizing into a how-to guide, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Thus, the article has no use and should be deleted. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSOFTWARE includes "instruction books" and "reliable reviews" under the notability criterion. The many 3rd party guides on how to use this software fulfill this criterion, besides the other coverage. 0xchase (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust corporate blogs. However, the books including the Springer one do seem good. Keep Aaron Liu (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is one of the more notable reverse engineering tools. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] 0xchase (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this tool has coverage in many cybersecurity books [9] 0xchase (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2024 (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.