Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KPassC


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

KPassC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I found no significant coverage per WP:N. The creator accused me of violating human rights and promoting censorship by prodding the article. SL93 (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

CREATOR PUBLIC RESPONSE:

If the article is an issue, KeePass and LastPass are two amongst many articles which too need to be "deleted". The article is within context, reasonable, has 20,000+ references within Google, has a third-party reference, is within the public domain and with the following points is indeed notable. It is unique, it offers features existing variants (within Wikipedia note) do not.

1. Practical official cross-platform clients 2. Uniform Polymorphic Credentials, URL bookmarking and Notes all in one 3. Optional Cloud facility offered by authors with further layers of encryption

Censorship is a violation of any human beings right. It is important Wikipedia maintains high standards by being impartial, neutral and unbiased. Let the people decide, more choice is better and information is key, if we removed this article but leave the rest, where is the level playing field.

If we contributed to articles these days instead of debating whether knowledge should exist then we would all benefit enormously, this debate seems petty and unjust.
 * Whatever you say. SL93 (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

CREATOR PUBLIC RESPONSE:

Explain here in public now... why you continue to discredit this article and let the audience know your opinions on KeePass and LastPass whilst you are at it. I strongly suspect you are illustrating elitist and favourable opinions on this topic and are behaving out of malice. You have presented ZERO evidence so kindly, partake legitimately or get lost.
 * The other articles are irrelevant to this discussion. I have no obligation to even look at those two articles. You, as this article's creator, have the obligation to show notability if you want this kept. Google hits are not the same thing as references. I have no problem explaining myself because this is a common AfD practice. SL93 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

CREATOR PUBLIC RESPONSE:

In the article are two external links, the initial is a link to the authors who develop the software so I believe that is a legitimate reference unless you disagree, feel free to explain your disagreement. I suspect you will indeed disagree out of malice.

Indeed you have no obligation to interfere but you have chosen to none the less. It really bothers me why you harass this article, it is legitimate information and serves the public neutrally.
 * That is a primary source so it alone does not show notability. SL93 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

CREATOR PUBLIC RESPONSE:

Please explain whether the second external link and 415 third party references, 26000 third party references are not noble?

Third party:

1. http://www.softpedia.com/get/Security/Password-Managers-Generators/KPassC.shtml 2. http://www.geardownload.com/security/kpassc.html 3. http://www.bestfreewaredownload.com/freeware/t-free-kpassc-freeware-xkrcuowc.html 4. http://www.xentrik.net/software/kpassc.html

If you do your research before responding, I believe it is credible... noble (if you will) much like KeePass and LastPass. Granted no celebrity has endorsed it but it is somewhat technical.

... I am awaiting a reply.
 * Someone who throws personal attacks around does not deserve any replies. SL93 (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

CREATOR PUBLIC RESPONSE:

As a moderator, you have a responsibility to fulfil your job correctly without getting personal. For the record, no insults have been made. I thereby invite a neutral Wikipedia moderator, administrator to justify the thought process of SL93.

Please note I have screenshot this debate for third-party readership for professionalism reasons.
 * You're the one getting personal about it. Your personal attacks include violating human rights, vandalizing by sending the article to AfD, acting out of malice, being elitist, and being bias. SL93 (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So you admit to planned canvassing which is against Wikipedia policy. SL93 (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose i can give you an explanation in that case.
 * The existence of other article's is never a reason why the discussed article should be removed or kept since other stuff exists.
 * In order to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia, article's need to be notable, and this notability must be verifiable trough reliable third party sources. The linked policy pages are somewhat long, so i would advice having a look at WP:42 for a definition of a reliable source.
 * The sources in this article are not reliable sources. The first link is the software creators own website, which is inherently not reliable due to the "Independent" criteria for a reliable source. The second page is not reliable since it is a blog.
 * Google searches are never reliable sources - nor are google hits a measure of notability. Article's need specific references that back up the content in the article. If you wish to know why, try a Google search on my username (Excirial). This will return about 42k hit; If google hits were any indication my username would be about twice as notable as this application. I could add a more in-depth explanation, but i suppose this example should be a decent indication.


 * For the record, i agree with SL93 on the personal attack issue. Statements such as "illustrating elitist and favourable opinions on this topic and are behaving out of malice" are clear examples of a personal attack. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to mention calling other editors nazis.  Yinta n   22:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It is questionable whether an opinion on a review is an actual attack, regardless back on topic perhaps.

CREATOR PUBLIC RESPONSE:

Q1. Please explain whether the second external link and 415 third party references, 26000 third party references are not noble?
 * It was already explained by a neutral third party admin just like you wanted. Also, I am not an admin and have no intention of applying. SL93 (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

CREATOR PUBLIC RESPONSE:

The links within Google address KPassC directly, the comparison between an alias is to be honest poor judgement. I fail to see your argument, an article on your alias as opposed to a product is of distinct context and your argument logic fails. I conclude this is an attempt to "attack" perhaps my existence on Wikipedia repeatedly and my contribution. Whilst I understand you are attempting to do a "job". There is a fine line between opinion and fact; some of your suppose response incorporates emotion I suspect which may or may not impair your reasoning skills and it is less than precise.

None the less, I don't believe your justifications justify why my article ought to be deleted. Just because you dislike something doesn't mean no one can obtain any "value" from it.

In addition, my point is clear, if you "chose" to pick on my article, less than 4 hours old? why not also nominate KeePass and LastPass.
 * DELETE Have you ever read WP:NEEDSMORE DRAMA? If you have, you would see that one example is:
 * If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion...
 * do explain why the subject meets inclusion criteria, providing reliable sources to support your assertion
 * do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale
 * Your reasoning violates this policy by suggesting that similar articles should be deleted rather than actually discussing why the KPassC article should be kept. The author has repeatedly removed the deletion tag from the page, making another violation of policy. This insignificant and not notable meets criteria for deletion and shouldn't remain on Wikipedia.155blue (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

CREATOR PUBLIC RESPONSE:


 * Delete: Doesn't have enough sourcing to justify being kept as an article. Would encourage creator to read WP:GNG and WP:RELIABLESOURCE rather than defaming me in a creator public response, as he has done with other editors in his "Creator Public Response"s  p  b  p  22:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. No proper third party sources, and no notability (yet). The software has only been released about 3 weeks ago. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising forum. And 'CREATOR' could you please stop the attacks and start signing your posts? Thanks.  Yinta n   22:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Article creator has been indeffed for disruptive editing p  b  p  22:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No third-party RS evidence of notability whatsoever. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I figured this might be a case of NOTYET as opposed to NOTEVER, but the author's conduct here might make a later proposal for a (properly sourced) article tricky. At present, there isn't enough coverage of the subject to justify the article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Excellent piece of software, deserves recognition amongst password manager alternatives here on Wikipedia. I sense a witch-hunt given the breadcrumbs of this one sided debate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.211.99 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)  Vote stricken per WP:DUCK
 * Speedy delete - Per A7 PantherLeapord (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment A WP:SPI case was opened against and . Feel free to contribute as you see fit.155blue (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2013 (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.