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. The improvements added to the article renders the previous delete opinions a little stale, and the comments after the improvements show that the article is now worthy of existing. (X! · talk)  · @080  ·  00:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FreeOTFE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this in Google, Google News, and Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability as the only open source program to provide disk encryption for PDAs, only one to provide driverless operation with FreeOTFE Explorer, first to provide cross platform support for encrypted Linux volumes, open source support for PKCS#11 security tokens, etc, etc. Nuwewsco (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nuwewsco. LotLE×talk 10:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this is somehow notable, we need to show evidence of notability in the form of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. This is, as of right now, sorely lacking. JBsupreme (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A widespread program, longstanding page too. Shadowjams (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - As other users have pointed out, it was the first open source system to introduce a lot of disk encryption functionality now found in other products (e.g. "portable mode"), and it's been around for a long time now. Some of it's functionality isn't even available with other systems (e.g. cross platform support for both Windows Mobile devices and Linux volumes). If this software wasn't notable, the page would have been deleted long ago F11f12f13 (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC) — F11f12f13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - This is the main way of accessing encrypted LUKS filesystems on Windows. Luks is linked in several other places in Wikipedia. Saying that FreeOTFE is not notable when it's the primary Win32 software package for this type of encrypted seems a bit weird. OK... it's not notable for *you* : that doesn't mean it's not notable. Also, I'm not sure that coverage in Google should be a barometer for what goes into Wikipedia - there are plenty of other search engines, and FYI Google does not cover every page on the internet, and search results may well be tailored to your previous searches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timlew (talk • contribs) 16:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC) — Timlew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. Do we have any coverage in reliable sources about this software? I appreciate that there's reason to believe that the software is notable, but the sources in the article are things like version histories and the like. One good article from a magazine would do it, quite honestly - if the software is that important, someone somewhere said so in a publication of some sort. Also, it's not worthwhile to compare this subject to others; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS describes why this isn't a good argument to make. We're talking about FreeOTFE, not any other software. If we can find sources that show why FreeOTFE is important, then we'll keep it. Otherwise, not. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - I've added additional references to the article. These include mentions in O'Reily books, Power Security Tools books, and various other consumer computer reference books. Some of those are more than simple mentions but have paragraphs describing the software. That's pretty remarkable for utility software. Here are some of those:

• David A. Karp, Windows Vista annoyances, O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2008, ISBN 0596527624, page 5.
• Michael Mandaville, Citizen-Soldier Handbook: 101 Ways Every American Can Fight Terrorism, Dog Ear Publishing, 2009 ISBN 1598586718, page 253.
• Gregory B. White, Wm. Arthur Conklin, Dwayne Williams, Roger L. Davis, Chuck Cothren, CompTIA Security+ All-in-One Exam Guide, Second Edition, McGraw Hill Professional, 2008, ISBN 0071601279, page 103.
• Bryan Burns, Jennifer Stisa Granick, Steve Manzuik, Paul Guersch, Dave Killion, Nicolas Beauchesne, Security power tools, O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2007, ISBN 0596009631, page 523.

Shadowjams (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In addition to references above, IIRC it was also mentioned in PC World and Information Week magazines (and a few others). Definitely worth keeping. Cupids wings (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are only two major (free) disk encryption systems for windows: truecrypt and freeOTFE, and for Windows Mobile, it's the only open source disk encryption system (see [1]). Just because it's not marketed heavily, and so doesn't appear on google much doesn't make it less notable. XFireRaidX (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per latest additions by Shadowjams. There is also a CNET review, executed by the CNET staff, though this is a minority comparing to the ones discovered by Shadowjams Honeyman (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.