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.
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
X509Public 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
Smith, Curtis (25 September 2006). Pro Open Source Mail: building an enterprise mail solution. Berkeley, Calif.: Apress. p. 132.
ISBN978-1-59059-598-5.
OCLC255341703.
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.
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
X509Public 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
Smith, Curtis (25 September 2006). Pro Open Source Mail: building an enterprise mail solution. Berkeley, Calif.: Apress. p. 132.
ISBN978-1-59059-598-5.
OCLC255341703.
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.