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 no consensus pushing strongly towards keep. Daniel (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digi-Sign[edit]

Digi-Sign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Doubts on notability. Leaving aside the CoI noted on the talk page, this is a private company with 40 employees. I put that way below WP:CORP. However, the 'pedia has a history of liking internet backbone-related companies, no matter what their size, and this appears to be one, so here it comes. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided at the moment. There is a clear COI in this article, and this is indeed a small company. But having had Getronics as the majority shareholder speaks to their advantage imo. I think it all depends on the scale of their involvement with "National ID Card implementations" (what do they do? in which countries?) and "online banking" (what do they do? for which banks? etc.). Aecis^Brievenbus 23:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I know what you mean - definitely not a speedy for all those reasons. But my hunch was, with the terrible sourcing and the CoI and the lack of out-and-out assertion of notability, then this was an AfD matter. If you (or anyone, not just you) can find actual third-party reliable sources that scream "keep", then we should. But I'm still erring on the side of getting shot of it. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC

• Keep. The company appears to be fairly important in E-business, particularly in Hong Kong. Given the critisism of the HKPCA ⁽¹⁾, the fact that this company was the first, and currently one of only two, comercial certificate authorities to be recognised by the Electronic Transactions Ordinance (ETO) is what suggests notability to me ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾. Furthermore, the recognition of Digi-Sign by the ETO was covered in a small news article in Computers & Security (a technical journal in IT ⁽³⁾; R Ecclestone (2001) Vol. 20, Issue 7, Pages 585-588.) --Lox (t,c) 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Hi there. Apart from being known in places mentioned above which is always nice :-) Perhaps I should explain my intentions more thoroughly. Before I do, let me answer one or two of the questions raised above: we are an incredible company in the true sense of the word. It is not credible that a company as small as ours can compete on an international level against the 'monsters' like VeriSign, et al and actually win the business. Hence the use of the word 'incredible'. The fact is that the Bahrain National ID project is the first National ID card in the whole of the GCC that is using ICAO compliant ID cards that use digital certificates to provide extra security on the card and provide electronic identity online. This was a highly contested and important milestone in the whole national ID card sector and we won it. How we won it is because we not only convinced the government of our merits but also because we convinced them of the importance of international credibility of what they were doing by insisting they had their environment ISO 27001 certified too. We are currently undergoing this process as I write.

This leads me to my next point which is the whole issue of educating the customer by truly involving them in the process. ISO 27001 is about implementing policies and procedures with the customers’ involvement to accurately define the environment and then go about protecting the assets.

As an organisation, we originally began life as a VeriSign Affiliate in 1999. After four frustrating years we conducted the MBO for many reasons but the principal one was our distaste for their unwillingness to truly share their knowledge with us. Effectively, despite paying many millions for the 'privilege' of being their partner, we had to learn everything we know about the industry by hiring in the intelligence. The larger PKI providers in the world charge hugely inflated prices for their service on the basis that they have the knowledge and you don't. And you pay heavily for their service.

In principal, they're probably right, it's taken them years to acquire this information, so why shouldn't they be handsomely paid for it? However, this principal, in my opinion, is one of the reasons why wide scale adoption of Digital Certificates has still not come into affect. Continuing on our 'incredible' path, we're going to radically change this over the coming months and years and Wikipedia will be one of the instruments we're going to use to help educate the world on how exactly the technology works, how to implement it, options and advice, do's and don'ts, etc etc.

Moreover, we're at an advanced stage in discussions with a large (if not the largest) open source Certificate Authority [CA] foundations where we will really bring the 'technology to the masses'. So for those Wikipedians that think we're here to advertise ourselves, that's true to a point but it's not the real intention. We intend to 'lift the lid' on this industry and, respectfully, without Wikipedia's support, it'll have less impact. The planned articles are not at sufficient detail yet, but for example, a central activity in implementing a Certificate Authority is the Root Key Ceremony and this should be conducted according to SAS 70. Wikipedia references SAS 70 but has nothing about how to conduct a Key Ceremony, or even what it is. We've seen prices as high as $200,000 being charged for this service when in fact, once you know how to do it, $10-20,000 is probably a fairer price to pay.

Then there’s articles like what a trust centre is, how to construct one, how to implement policies and procedures (ISO 27001 :-), software, cross certification, etc etc. As I say, the actual article plan is not defined yet.

Anyhow, I've written enough for now. You must do what you must but may I suggest that regardless of your final decision, once we start to commit (and contribute) these articles to Wikipedia, you will agree to permit us to appear. Seems fair to me, but again - that’s your call. Thanks P.--PReynolds

• Keep Regardless of the irrelevancy in the previous discussion,they are already well-known enough to be notable. We are not here to support industry developments, and if we dido, we'd lose our reputation for NPOv & objectivity. I caution PR that the range of general articles being planned need to be written totally free of any slant towards a particular solution. I thank him for the frank declaration of COI, for we will be watching. DGG (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:27, 19 January 2008 (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.