Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secure USB drive

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. No bias against a complex merge. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secure USB drive

There is already a security section within usb flash drive that pretty much covers the topic. Also, there is no such thing as a secure usb drive, though there are security measures that can be applied to data on usb flash drives just as they can be applied to data on hard drives, CD-ROMs (while being written), or even floppy disks for that matter. Unless we want articles on secure floppy disks, secure hard drives, etc. it seems like this article should be deleted. Also, secure is a quality that is relative and non-absolute - i.e. some things are more secure than others - just as are fast and rugged. Articles on fast usb drive or rugged usb drive aren't appropriate, nor are articles on fast or rugged floppy disks for that matter. These qualities can be discussed in the USB flash drive article, but are by themselves unencyclopedic. Eruvian (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains perfectly good work and should rather be improved upon. -down load | sign! 23:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the subject is a notable one that can be written about, I'm concerned that a lot of this article is, in fact, original research. The large section on costs of data security breaches is sourced to two sources, one of which was not considering USB storage in particular, and the other of which was conducted by a vendor of secure flash disks, thus hardly making it an independent source. Most of the examples of data theft/loss cited do not concern flash disks at all. The "solutions" and "management" sections are unsourced, and while they appear at first glance to be largely accurate, they do need close attention to ensure the claims are accurate. Also, I'm not convinced that a flash drive that has been secured via software is routinely referred to as a "Secure USB Drive", a phrase I've only ever heard used to refer to the hardware type. To address this concern, the article may need renaming (e.g. to USB flash drive security) and rewriting from a slightly different perspective. This would have the advantage that the article would then become a summary-style section of USB flash drive. There may also be NPOV issues, as the article appears to push software encryption as a better solution than hardware encryption. All of this will take a lot of work, and I question whether or not it is more practical to simply start from scratch. JulesH (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article includes reliable sources and describes a recognized significant class of USB drives (compare to Rugged computer or Subcompact car). However, I support JulesH's suggestions above that the name of the article be changed to USB flash drive security and the article be used as a summary section in USB flash drive. I do not support the assessment that starting over from scratch may be preferable; even if so, the presence of an existing article does not prevent an editor starting a rewrite from scratch if so desired. – 74 21:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the cited info into the USB drive article. I don't agree that secure USB drive is a significant type, it is just a normal USB drive with normal security attached. When the OR is removed from this article, it would easily fit in the parent article section. Only needs recreating if that section grows too large. The keep votes don't seem to adrees the problems: yes it can be worked on and has some sources, but it would better serve a reader to have this important information covered in the main article.Yob Mod 13:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to USB flash drive security. (1) The ramifications of using USB flash drives for storing sensitive data and the security problems associated with them is a notable topic. (2) The USB flash drive article is long enough to justify splitting this topic out into its own article. (3) I support moving the article to the more neutral and encyclopedic name USB flash drive security. After keeping and renaming, the article does need a complete rewrite. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm fine with a merge in place of a delete. Given that there are many different types of portable media in current use (CD-ROMs, DVDs, portable hard drives, solid-state drives, flash drives, etc.), and that with few exceptions they are protected in much the same way, I suggest that portable media security be a section within data security, or perhaps a secure storage section in computer security. It seems that either of these would reduce future redundant articles like portable hard drive security and solid-state disk security and heaven-forbid floppy disk security that would all read somewhat like "Due to their portability, <insert portable media here> often have their data protected by...". Any particulars of usb flash drive security could then be dealt with in the usb flash drive article with a See Also pointing to data security. Just trying to keep it clean and tight. BTW, I'm pretty new and this is my first AfD - really great to see the process work! I'm curious to see what comes next...! =) Eruvian (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2009 (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.