Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SecurDisc


 * 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. Fram (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

SecurDisc

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No references, written like an advertisement, no overt assertion of notability --- lots of G hits, because "Securdisk" occurs in the part numbers and brochures of lots of drives --- but no news coverage, no ArsTechnica "how this thing works" articles, no Tom's Hardware mentions; I'm a security practitioner and this stuff has never come up. Disputed PROD. --- tqbf 17:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Redfarmer (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete - G11  Blatant advertising, no secondary sources, no need to send this through AfD. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of the advertising has been removed, but the article is still unsourced, with no assertion of notability. Mr Senseless (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * keep No comment Mr_KC (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should it be kept? Please elaborate. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait just a minute, there... Delete because there is "no reference"? This is not an article about an epic battle of the middle ages. This is about a PRODUCT, which is made by a COMPANY. Everything being stated in this article, which has been elaborated by the other contributors, seems to match what can be found on the net. Is simply common knowledge about the product itself. I mean, come on like one have to cite a refference when saying "iPod is a digital music player" or "Windows is an Operating System". I say this article should be kept. --Pinnecco (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All articles in Wikipedia must be notable. Subjects are notable when reliable sources that are independent of the subject write about them. That's not an opinion; it's Wikipedia policy. I know it's stressful to write an article on a company and see it get deleted, but I couldn't find any reliable sources writing about "SecurDisk". What makes it notable? Maybe if you explain that, we'll be able to track down a source to verify it. --- tqbf  02:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I'll start marking for deletion articles the articles for Nero Burning ROM, Easy CD Creator, Windows XP and so forth. You want references? Why don't you then help with the article and add the SecurDisc website as the source, instead of just marking the article to be deleted? My opinion stands: keep the article: it is getting good and will improve with time. --Pinnecco (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we try a different tack? Instead of me trying to convince you to vote "delete", can you tell us what's interesting about SecurDisk? What makes SecurDisk notable? It was the fact that I couldn't find any references to what SecurDisk was or what made it special that motivated me to put it up for deletion. I could be convinced in the other direction. --- tqbf  21:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.   —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment To me, this doesn't read like an advertisement - there are equally leveled pages for other encryption software such as CrossCrypt and BestCrypt (to name just two); perhaps if the consensus is to delete this article then someone could consider merging the details into Comparison of disk encryption software before it goes. Interesting, 15 of the encryption software solutions listed on that page have their own article page - if we delete this one, then surely we should delete them all. Kavanagh21 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'll check those articles out next, and if they have no discernable notability, we'll see them on AfD soon too. --- tqbf  22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * CrossCrypt has a HEISE.DE download link and nothing else I can find. CrossCrypt may merit an AfD.
 * BestCrypt has a ton of references, in PC World, the Chicago Tribune, and InfoWeek. The difference between BestCrypt and SecurDisc seems to be the difference between a notable disk encryption product and a non-notable disk encryption product. --- tqbf  18:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This article is about a relevant technology. On the other hand, it is partly written in an advertising style ("provides secure data protection...", while every data protection can be broken).147.175.98.213 (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to comment. Can you create an account? It takes no time, doesn't require your email address, and will actually gain you privacy.
 * You say SecurDisc is a relevant technology. You're the second person to say that. I don't want the article deleted if the technology is relevant; can you point us to a reliable source that says that SecurDisc is relevant? I'll change my vote immediately. Thanks! --- tqbf  00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With the account, you are probably right.
 * SecurDisc... I cannot find a source saying, that it is relevant. Therefore I used "weak keep" and not "keep". The technology is however supported by 2 big vendors (Nero AG and LG) and it seems to me, that it is at the same level, as the protection technologies listed on the CD/DVD copy protection page, which have their own pages. On the other hand, the SecurDisc article needs improvement...147.175.98.213 (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2008 (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.