Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DiskCryptor (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 04:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

DiskCryptor
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. An admin told me that the article does not meet csd-g4. Schuym1 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: "...the first open source (GPL) full disk encryption system for MS Windows..." As raised before, what source attributes that statement? A self-published source? Sorry, this article was crap before and it's crap after its recreation. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: I just don't understand why all the haters about this article? It is extraordinary difficult to locate a citation for anything being the "first" (let's talk about first human flight for example or the many other things we are traditionally taught that one person developed it first and years later we find out that is not quite the case). I am not aware of anyone else making the claim they were available before DiskCryptor, certainly TrueCrypt came later. In this case I think it makes sense to give the author the benefit of the doubt as no one else has come forward claiming anything different. This is simply not the kind of thing where a source would even exist. Still, it is the case that DiskCryptor was first and is thus notable. Can you tell I am annoyed that we keep going over this? --BenFranske (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep.. DiskCryptor is notable as being first open source disk encryption system for Windows that allowed the user to encrypt the entire disk, including system partition. This is particularly significant and makes the article notable in itself, as there are very few systems which can do this which aren't commercial. As for being a "self published source", AFAIK the DiskCryptor WWW site doesn't actually say it was the first - the date of its release can be confirmed by checking the ITConsult PGP timstamps, which state its release date, and is in advance of any other system of its nature (full disk encryption). ISTM that a lot of the vitrol launched against this software centers around truecrypt fanboy-ism; a product which would have been the first free open source disk encryption for windows, had DiskCryptor not been released Nuwewsco (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless multiple independent reliable sources can be found providing non-trivial coverage of the subject. Sorry if that sounds rather "boilerplate" but this seems pretty straightforward to me. If this product is notable, it hasn't been demonstrated. If sufficient information has been published to source a verifiable article, where is it? Currently there are two sources, one first-party, both self-published. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 16:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's dispense with the concerns about notability which is generally a BS argument. If whole drive encryption is a notable topic, then the first open source whole drive encryption program is notable regardless of how popular it is among English speakers. I have added several more citations indicating that DiskCryptor was first, or at least was released prior to the TrueCrypt 5 release which would be the only other contender I know of. You can look all day but people don't often write articles saying that "X was the first" until they are looking back at the history of something some time later. What people say is "X is now available" and these are generally what I have cited. Unless someone can prove that something else was first it makes sense to assume that DiskCryptor was first given what we know. --BenFranske (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, hate to inform you, but notability guidelines is what drives if an article is kept or deleted in this instance. If it's not notable, it's either selected for CSD or AFD. If we were to keep every passing article or crap about everything and anything, this encyclopedia would either be used as a driving vehicle for spam, or be filled with trivial, bad articles. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, see the policy on verifiability: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article" This seems to fit the case here, the dispute is about notability thus self-published sources should be allowed to show notability. --BenFranske (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Web-site forums are not reliable sources. I'm tempted to remove the self-published sources, given that they are not verified against other credible sources. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  18:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm seriously loosing faith in the place of common sense in Wikipedia here. Obviously using only a web forum as a major source for an article is a bad idea. However, using one to timestamp when a product was made available makes a lot of sense as products are often discussed in forums shortly after the announcement. You have to use your brain sometimes to determine if a source is appropriate or not for the purpose of citing it. In this case it is completely appropriate that a web forum be used to timestamp the arrival of a product. Please cite any policy which specifically states web forums are unacceptable. I would think they would fall under self-published sources which (as above) are valid for discussions of notability. I fail to understand your holy war against this article and am becoming seriously ticked off. Regardless of what I think about notability being BS. The policy is clear, self-published sources are valid for discussion of notability. --BenFranske (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding common sense: I do not think it is sensible to use "X is notable because X says so" as an argument for keeping articles.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I am not saying "X is notable because X says so" that would be if the DiskCryptor people declared themselves notable. I am saying X is notable because they were the first to do something. I have also provided several sources indicating they when X was released as well as discussing why few sources ever say something is first until years later. Not sure what more I can do for you. --BenFranske (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So be ticked off. Article deletion is a common process, and no one article is more special than another in the spirit of notability and article sourcing. We strive to have articles that are reliably and adequately sourced, that are declared notable, and if there are disagreements, then the article is either repaired or wiped under consensus. Such guidelines and policies are not open for reinterpretation for each and every article, although you are free to attempt to have these guidelines and policies changed through discussion on their respective discussion pages. As a note, you should seriously read Self-Published Sources seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  19:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My question then is this: would this article be notable if it is true that DiskCryptor was the first open source full drive encryption utility for Windows? If not then we are wasting time because I think that is what makes it notable. --BenFranske (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. It still wouldn't pass WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific about why it would not pass WP:N. Is it that coverage has not been significant enough? --BenFranske (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(Restart) To quote: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

See also: General Notability Guideline for a breakdown of the schematics. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  20:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So the problem is that the "mainstream press" has not reported on DiskCryptor (eg. most references are self-published)? Seems like a bad idea to dump articles because they are under-reported by the "press" even if they may be of legitimate historical interest. This also seems to disadvantage open source software which often receives little press coverage. See CrossCrypt, Cryptoloop, GBDE, Private Disk, etc. for examples of software which would appear to be non-notable, there is lots more. --BenFranske (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If it were of legitimate historical interest, historians would have documented it, and we could base an article on the sources thus generated. Wikipedia is not here to document something that the world hasn't documented, however interesting, significant, unique, groundbreaking, or otherwise you personally, and subjectively, think it to be.  This is an encyclopaedia, not a publisher of first instance.  If you want this subject documented in the history books, go and write a history book that documents it.  And if you find other articles for which proper sources cannot be found to exist (after looking for them, yourself, properly), nominate then for deletion in accordance with our deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep ISTM that the main arguments for deleting this article are that:
 * It was previously deleted
 * It isn't notable
 * It can't be verified that it's the first system of its kind
 * Addressing these, however:
 * The reason it was previously deleted for two reasons:
 * Some users thought it was a copy of another product ("Truecrypt"), which had similar functionality, but couldn't encrypt the disk the Windows OS was stored on (although Truecrypt added this abilit much later).
 * It wasn't a copy; and this is pretty clear from the fact it predated the version of Truecrypt's which could do this.
 * The first version of the article was little more than a copy/paste from its WWW site, so it did make some sense to delete it.
 * However, if you look at the article now, even though it's just a stub atm, this is clearly not the case anymore. I'll look into expanding it to make it more comprehensive.
 * This software is notable. As other users have pointed out, it was the first ever open source disk encryption system available which allowed the Windows system disk to be encrypted, which is notable in itself
 * This is a pretty major achievement, and one that shouldn't be ignored. There's only one other program which offers this, and it's long since been debated as to whether the licence under which it's released really does conform to the open source definition
 * From the looks of it, a number of references have been put forward to verify that it was released before any other full disk encryption program; a couple were based on forumn entries which, although perhaps not particularly good source of information, do back up the claim. The other references which remain are from independant sources
 * Given time, I wouldn't mind extending the article to add more information Raftermast (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion forum postings from undentifiable people going under pseudonyms such as "jamie" and "Neowinian", whose reputations for fact checking and accuracy cannot be determined, let alone be determined to be good, are not reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. And you clearly don't understand what notability is. It is not your personal, subjective, estimation of what is important, famous, groundbreaking, or significant in the world.  It is Notability, and it is not subjective.  It is not based upon size, significance, popularity, usage, or fame.  It is based upon sources.  Sources!  Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2009 (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.