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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 05:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CAcert.org[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Contested WP:PROD. Not a notable topic, clearly written as an advertisement and relying on primary sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources seem sufficient to meet the notability guideline. Granted, they are positive and not critical, but they do contain some substantive information, but they don’t strike me as particularly promotional for coverage of a certificate authority. --Eruedin (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think I will likely be voting !keep but really ought to complete (due diligence first Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)). In general X509 Public key certificate (PKI) stuff is in my view very important. To be clear this is one of a number of certificate authority entities, (with an eye-cacthing name) but is a not a trusted authority. Probably useful for cheaper community based arrangements. I'd be concerned this might need 3rd party independent reviews and there is a risk the article might use CAcert for CAcert.org and Cartificate Authority certificate. PKI stuff sometimes ends up doing my head in, but it is critically important, and I'm not sure if I've mentioned nonsense in this comment. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CAcert is the only example of a transparent, open-source, collaborative, international project that manages to issue personal certificates based on mutual verification of identity documents between individuals. By its singular nature, CAcert is part of the history of computing. At a time when state-certified digital identity will become a hot topic, it is worth keeping a reference to CAcert on Wikipedia..Golffies (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of the sources provided so far only one may be considered reliable and be used to help establish notability. The rest are either bug reports, user forums or primary sources, which mean most of this article is original research. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't tell if this article is neutral: CACert.org is a free project "à la" Wikipedia. --Frans45 (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some indications nom. may not have done a proper before and has failed to check the books link. Obvious example is: Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smith, Curtis (25 September 2006). Pro Open Source Mail: building an enterprise mail solution. Berkeley, Calif.: Apress. p. 132. ISBN 978-1-59059-598-5. OCLC 255341703.

Keep Agree that sources are sufficiently notable. MagentaSwann (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2022 (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.