Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KeePass


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

KeePass

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nearly all sources are primary or not WP:RS. A single non-trivial RS (a PC World review) is not enough for WP:GNG. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Will add more references/citations to the article. I'm not a developer of Keepass or any associated software, but a loyal user for a long time. I hate to see such a good software missing in Wikipedia.  Tsba  17:00, 14 July, 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment -- KeePass and LastPass are regularly recommended (equally) by articles published by Sophos (eg Naked Security postings), advocating improved password security by all of us. The LastPass article does not appear to be under threat. This article deserves the chance to be as well-supported by references and must be given the time for them to be found. (Sorry, this is a drive-by comment: I'm not a current user of either package, but a potential user seeking information. Removing the KeePass article would make such comparison harder.) -- EdJogg (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is an article about a piece of software. Maybe in a perfect world an encyclopedia isn't the best place for a piece of software, or if a piece of software is so significant that it deserves any entry it should be a simple description without making any interesting claims about the software. But Wikipedia isn't really just an encyclopedia, because this isn't a perfect world and there isn't an equally popular Wiki that can get you the kind of information you want about products. If you see something that isn't true, delete it, but the idea that an article about a piece of software needs to be as well cited as an article appropriate for a normal encyclopedia. Qalnor (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a good article, just needs some work. Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 05:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Keepass is a significant piece of open software which is at the heart of many derivative software, that is it incorporating pieces of technology that other wikipedia articles will reference. I just linked to Keepass from another article on wikipedia called TAN which is a onetime password key generator that Keypass supports. By linking to to Keypass it makes the technologies accessible and practical to implement because it is free. The nominator for deletion fails to recognize the black and white logarithm that the nomination is working under. I can't understand how a keyword like keepass which has almost 600000 search results on googles is not significant. Hence my belief that it should be retained --Joewski (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Keepass/x and derivatives are part of tools frequently recommended by security experts and used by security conscious people (it would be surprising if they didn't have a userbase numbering in the millions, if not tens of millions). You can find articles on the software on any tech site/journal. Here are some of them.
 * Open-source password keeper to get 'minor' weekend security fix - The Register
 * Security - LWN.net
 * Password protection for everyone - The H
 * Password Management with KeePassX - Linux Gazette
 * KeePassX: Keeping Your Passwords Safe - Linux Journal
 * 8 of the best Linux password managers: KeePassX - TechRadar -- Last Contrarian (talk) 12:34, 25 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.