Talk:SecureCRT

Random comment
Not only is this not written like an advertisement (whatever that means), what part of "competitors include" don't you understand? I've seen this obnoxious shibboleth box indicated for all sorts of articles not written like ads -- newer ones especially, so maybe this is the newest toy for those who are interested mainly in exclusion, and in combination with the fact that anyone can call any kind of editing vandalism is the reason Wp may yet not reach its stated objective and even now seems to be declining in credibility amongst some groups of people.. ``````

Sources and notability
All of the sources are from Van Dyke (including the newsgroup announcement). TEDickey (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The newsgroup announcement documents nothing other than the date SecureCRT was initially announced. This date does not seem to be in dispute, so I do not understand how a third-party reference is better in this respect.


 * Likewise with the other sources -- for things like operating system compatibility and product features, the vendor of a software package would seem to be the best source for this information. There is precedent for this; e.g. scores of microsoft.com links in the reference list for Microsoft Office.


 * As for notability, there are plenty of sources out there; a Google search for "SecureCRT -site:vandyke.com" returns over 3.7 million results. However, most of these are either download links from third-party sites, discussion fora (including numerous vi-emacs style religious wars on the preference between SecureCRT and PuTTY) etc. Is that what you are looking for?


 * Please help me understand how to better establish notability without adding clutter.-Stian 09:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Third-party (independent) product reviews/comparisons tend to be a good place to get notability established. The PDF doesn't mention SecureCRT, so it's of limited use in this topic.  Focusing on finding reliable sources not from VanDyke is the way to go. TEDickey (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The PDF was not intended to establish notability; it is merely there to document that SecureCRT contains a compliant implementation of FIPS 140-2. I have added a link to VanDyke's FIPS compliance page to clarify this.
 * I have also added numerous links to reviews, as well as some discussion threads on the subject. Finally, I have added third-party information on the OS X version. Please review these links and remove the sources tag if satisfied. -Stian 10:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are links, but not all are useful. Here are comments on a few:

The ones I marked as advertisements are typical of sites that rely on web-scraping or other data directly from the vendor. Anonymous forum comments aren't reliable sources either TEDickey (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * forum comment is anonymous
 * forum comment is anonymous
 * review ok
 * advertisement
 * is anonymous
 * advertisement
 * forum comment is anonymous
 * I have removed some of the links due to the deficiences you pointed out, and have sourced some that I believe are better. I did leave in the BetaNews link, as it contains genuinely useful information.Stian (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It'd be more readable using the form in Citation templates TEDickey (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit uncertain exactly what on that page applies; it seems to have a lot of templates for different situations. I would appreciate if you could update the article according to the usage you have in mind, or at least show me another article where these templates are used in the manner you refer to. Meanwhile, I will remove the "primary sources" tag since that objection appears to have been addressed. Thanks! Stian (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Mostly you'd use the "cite web". The Wine (software) topic uses that for instance. TEDickey (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Article rewrite
I recently rewrote this article, attempting to maintain NPOV, include a software infobox, address some concerns absent from the original article (like export restrictions) and basically attempt to create more than just a stub article.

I removed the RfD per the criteria listed above; I also removed the stub and reference tags because I have added references and I believe the article is now much more fleshed-out than the stub that appeared here before.

There is still debate regarding notability. I will add my two cents on that in a bit, but I lost connectivity while uploading images for the article, so I will finish that portion first. -Stian (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)