- 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
VeraCrypt
- VeraCrypt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article reads like an ad, is almost entirely based on primary sources, and written by a single-purpose account. At this point, I don't think the software is notable enough to warrant a separate article. Since this is a fork of TrueCrypt, and probably 99% identical, it could simply be mentioned in the TrueCrypt article. Laurent ( talk) 08:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: There is a certain amount of ad-like verbiage in here, but nothing that can't be easily reworded without losing meaning. Certainly nothing unsalvageable. In fact much of the structure looks to be modeled on the TryCrypt page. SPA-written, perhaps, though again there's nothing excessive that can't be tweaked. Sources as given in the article do rely heavily on the vendor's own site, but a quick search shows numerous other hits about the product. Since this is one of (currently) only 2 viable replacements for TruCrypt, and has grown past a 99% forking, I think the notability threshold is met. Cleanup needed, yes, but not reason to delete outright. Crow Caw 23:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Yes, it may have characteristics of an ad, but as Crow mentioned, VeraCrypt is currently one of the only 2 viable replacements for TrueCrypt, which has halted all development and is no longer officially available as of last year. The other one is CipherShed. (Please also note that both are free & open-source software.) While it is mostly based on primary sources, the information presented can be independently verified by looking at the publicly available source code. As for notability, a search for "VeraCrypt" on Google shows that it does have coverage from independent sources. Tony Tan98 · talk 03:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: The article needing a re-write shouldn't preclude it from inclusion in Wikipedia. The article's subject is the functional successor to one of the most well-known cyber-security software tools. Non-primary sources abound on the Internet; they simply need to be used to replace content citing primary sources. Smeggysmeg ( talk) 20:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: I agree, it is not well written and from a single source, however it is a new product, quite different to Truecrypt and should be listed. I am more concerned why we are even discussing deleting this entry? Brain696 ( talk) 20:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: I created this page by editing the existing TrueCrypt page and updating it with VeraCrypt's unique characteristics. I am not part of the VeraCrypt development team, just a VeraCrypt user who was surprised to find that there was no Wikipedia page for VeraCrypt, even though there is a page for TrueCrypt (defunct) and a page for CipherShed (vaporware so far). It is blatantly unreasonable to even consider deleting the page of the ONLY currently functional member of the TrueCrypt family, while retaining pages for the two non-functional members of that family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commenter8 ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Sounds legit to me. Ellomate (questions? talk/ consult my lawyer) 23:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 4 February 2015 (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.
- 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
VeraCrypt
- VeraCrypt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article reads like an ad, is almost entirely based on primary sources, and written by a single-purpose account. At this point, I don't think the software is notable enough to warrant a separate article. Since this is a fork of TrueCrypt, and probably 99% identical, it could simply be mentioned in the TrueCrypt article. Laurent ( talk) 08:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: There is a certain amount of ad-like verbiage in here, but nothing that can't be easily reworded without losing meaning. Certainly nothing unsalvageable. In fact much of the structure looks to be modeled on the TryCrypt page. SPA-written, perhaps, though again there's nothing excessive that can't be tweaked. Sources as given in the article do rely heavily on the vendor's own site, but a quick search shows numerous other hits about the product. Since this is one of (currently) only 2 viable replacements for TruCrypt, and has grown past a 99% forking, I think the notability threshold is met. Cleanup needed, yes, but not reason to delete outright. Crow Caw 23:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Yes, it may have characteristics of an ad, but as Crow mentioned, VeraCrypt is currently one of the only 2 viable replacements for TrueCrypt, which has halted all development and is no longer officially available as of last year. The other one is CipherShed. (Please also note that both are free & open-source software.) While it is mostly based on primary sources, the information presented can be independently verified by looking at the publicly available source code. As for notability, a search for "VeraCrypt" on Google shows that it does have coverage from independent sources. Tony Tan98 · talk 03:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: The article needing a re-write shouldn't preclude it from inclusion in Wikipedia. The article's subject is the functional successor to one of the most well-known cyber-security software tools. Non-primary sources abound on the Internet; they simply need to be used to replace content citing primary sources. Smeggysmeg ( talk) 20:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: I agree, it is not well written and from a single source, however it is a new product, quite different to Truecrypt and should be listed. I am more concerned why we are even discussing deleting this entry? Brain696 ( talk) 20:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: I created this page by editing the existing TrueCrypt page and updating it with VeraCrypt's unique characteristics. I am not part of the VeraCrypt development team, just a VeraCrypt user who was surprised to find that there was no Wikipedia page for VeraCrypt, even though there is a page for TrueCrypt (defunct) and a page for CipherShed (vaporware so far). It is blatantly unreasonable to even consider deleting the page of the ONLY currently functional member of the TrueCrypt family, while retaining pages for the two non-functional members of that family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commenter8 ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Sounds legit to me. Ellomate (questions? talk/ consult my lawyer) 23:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 4 February 2015 (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.