Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrueCrypt


 * 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   speedy keep. The sources reliability has no bearing on if the application is/was secure to use. You are clearing misinterpreting how sources support the article. They support the articles Verifiability not necessarily the articles topic itself. (non-admin closure)  Jay  Jay What did I do? 18:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

TrueCrypt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The development of the application was ended and the application lost significance (it is not secure to use and users should not note it).

Any sources previously supporting the application cannot support it anymore as the application is not secure to use.

The article is missing a reliable source supporting the application and needs to be removed (see No original research). — Preceding unsigned comment added by User340 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 14 July 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Notability does not just go away because the product has been discontinued. There have been an enormous amount of reliable sources which have reported on Truecrypt and in depth too, and quite easily meets the General notability guideline. Additionally, I don't want to bring this back onto the nominator, but do you have another account? It's very peculiar for your first edits to be nominating an article for deletion. Tutelary (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The story of how the application was widely used, then suddenly came to be declared insecure, with development apparently disappearing, is significant in itself and widely covered in the tech press.  TrueCrypt is likely to persist as a long time as an example of a situation where this has happened, and is therefore likely to continue to be a notable subject, worth covering, for the forseeable future. Jheald (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. TrueCrypt remains significant because of its historical significance. Should we delete the article on because they've died? See WP:N. As the grounds for this nomination are invalid, there is little need for extended discussion. —WOFall (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per above - Ridiculous nomination, Passes GNG. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - extensively referenced software article, including major RS news sources. Notability is not in question.Dialectric (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Agree with all the above to keep. There are plenty of reliable sources and the application hasn't been proven to be insecure.  The audit isn't even complete yet. Dgrinkev (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - This is not a proper nomination. We don't delete articles about software programs just because they are, allegedly, no longer secure. Laurent (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - I think this application is very significant despite being discontinued, as it was the go-to application for data encryption. Lucasoutloud (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

None of the arguments invalidated the fact that the application is now only an original research without support from reliable sources. It also does not matter whether you think the application is secure -- it was declared not secure to use.

From Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators: ''Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.'' User340 (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You have not cited any evidence that the material IS original research. The way to prove that material is not original research is that there are reliable sources. There are an abundance of reliable sources. We don't need any original research to extract material about Truecrypt, the sources do that all by themselves. Notability is not temporary. Tutelary (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2014 (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.