Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of SSL certificates for web servers


 * 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   delete. This is obviously a listing. The items are supported by their own companies and thus notability cannot be established. The only information we have is from the companies themselves. Much of the discussion here is clear OSE reasoning which is discounted. JodyBtalk 19:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of SSL certificates for web servers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a directory or a catalogue. Jasper Deng (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I like this article as a topic. I would consider it a useful resource as a web developer. It's not a catalogue, because it compares products across multiple vendors. However that's where this article fails: it's entirely sourced for each vendor, from each vendor. In the absence of 3rd party sourcing for the comparisons, we should lose this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTDIR, WP:SYNTHESIS. Pburka (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't agree that WP:NOTDIR or WP:SYNTHESIS are relevant to the article, which follows a similar format to many other comparison pages on Wikipedia covering computer-related issues, e.g. comparison of file systems. Sure, it could be improved with 3rd party sourcing, so I've added a refimprove tag, but that's not sufficient reason for deletion! zazpot (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The existence of other articles does not justify the existence of this one. This one is very difficult to source with 3rd-party sources, while the one you linked is easily sourced with outside sources. The article as written (the one we're considering for deletion here) reads too much like a sales catalogue, while the other one does not.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Jasper, WP:Other stuff exists supports my remark above: see this part. I also challenge you to justify your assertion that, "The article as written (the one we're considering for deletion here) reads too much like a sales catalogue, while the other one does not." I disagree that either read like a sales catalogue: except insofar as they compare the intrinsic properties of a number of implementations of a notable technology (which is unavoidable, and indeed the point and the value of the articles), neither article encourages readers to buy anything at all. The article under discussion is, however, a useful resource for people wanting to learn about the differences between the SSL certificates currently in more or less widespread use on the World Wide Web, by consulting an encyclopaedic reference source that covers this. Improving the references may be difficult, but it is not impossible. Wikipedians would not exist if they gave up at the first sign of difficulty! However, if you delete the article, then providing good references for it will be an impossible task, so please do not do that. Improve it instead, or move on and leave it in place for others to improve over time. zazpot (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice you're the article creator. This article is nothing but a list of SSL certificates, there are plenty of third-party sites for that. Most notably there is very little encyclopedic prose and none of those certificates have their own articles. In short, it's nothing but a directory of certificates, which is out of Wikipedia's scope. I even don't like comparison articles on Wikipedia in general for that reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Jasper, you are mistaken to say, "This article is nothing but a list of SSL certificates". If it were, it would be called "List of SSL certificates for web servers", and would be formatted like the articles beneath Category:Lists rather than like those under Category:Comparisons (and their subcategories). You will note that both these categories are ripe with articles lacking prose but which are nevertheless valued by those of us who (unlike you, perhaps) find structured content comparing reifications of notable concepts to be perfectly legitimate encyclopaedic material, not to mention darned useful. I don't come to Wikipedia for the prose, I come here for the information; and prose is a poor format for comparative information. Finally, you said, "I don't even like comparison articles on Wikipedia", which, if you act on that bias, suggests WP:TE on your part. So, I respectfully ask you to grind your axe elsewhere. zazpot (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again your arguments are WP:OSE - I think it's pretty clear that regardless of the title, this page is out of Wikipedia's scope (and, can't you assume good faith a bit? Never did I say that my opinion about comparison articles in general was my reason for my previous comment). WP:NOTDIR has no exceptions for this article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already addressed your WP:OSE comment: see above. I am indeed assuming good faith: if you read WP:TE you will see that bias ≠ bad faith. WP:NOTDIR doesn't, on my reading of it, even apply to this article as it stands, so cannot be used as a basis for deleting it. zazpot (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is, you have not said exactly why NOTDIR does not apply to this page. How is a table listing all these certificates anything but a directory? (and TE doesn't even apply here, I'm not on some campaign to have these pages all deleted... nor am I trying to make a point by having the page deleted).--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Simple: WP:NOTDIR lists six grounds for rejecting content, and it is doubtful to me that this article meets any reasonable interpretation of any of those six. That is why. As for TE, please re-read my original remark. zazpot (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Huge effort I think the topic for this article is excellent, relevant, and useful, but there are large gaps in the rows (for instance, number of products) and the columns (for instance, price!).  The page as exists is worthless (DELETE), but the page as it might become is meritorious (KEEP). Marc W. Abel (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed prices for a good reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you; that's fair editing. Keep the baby (i.e. the article), but throw out the bathwater, I say. zazpot (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, or not-so-huge effort. The page is a useful resource, and needs minor reorganization:  I understand WP:NOPRICES, but an indication of the commercial/nonprofit character of the organization is due.  Another task is to ease comparison with the Mozilla Included CA Certificate List.  The title should also be changed, I propose Comparison of TLS/SSL certificates for secure servers  ale (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I also challenge the notability of this page because there are no third-party reliable sources that even come close to completing this comparison page. There are third-party catalogues of SSL certificates but they do not help establish notability. We do not list all the items on, say, Amazon.com, just because they are listed/compared on that site.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You say, "there are no third-party reliable sources that even come close to completing this comparison page". I challenge you to prove that. Your remark about Amazon is a straw man. As for notability, I would think that as Project Bullrun and related efforts are scrutinised in the wake of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures, some of the SSL certificates in the article may well find themselves getting much more attention from Wikipedia editors, as it will be notable which have, and which have not, had their keys compromised zazpot (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Those might establish notability for individual certificates, but not a comparison article (is the topic of a comparison notable?). We have articles on various pieces of software but do not normally create comparison pages without reliable sources that do such comparisons.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If your question was not rhetorical, then my answer is as before: the article is fine to keep and will - as is the case with virtually every Wikipedia article - benefit from refinement. You say, "We ... do not normally create comparison pages without reliable sources that do such comparisons." I dispute that. There are multiple articles within, for instance, Category:Computing comparisons that stand as counterexamples, if you look at their early histories. zazpot (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's entirely an OSE argument (here the comparison is definitely invalid). Those comparisons are grounded in other reliable sources, for the most part (that document a comparison). You've completely dodged my argument based on whether it alone meets the notability guideline.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be grateful if you would re-read WP:OSE and take a closer look through the counterexamples I mentioned. Between those two resources, any reasonable concerns about notability should be satisfied. zazpot (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The original nominator had it correct. Despite strenuous arguments to the contrary, it is merely a list of various SSL providers with minimal information about each and links.  Arguing that it is not a list just because it is not titled "List of..." is specious, and claiming that WP:OSE offers support for the inclusion of this list is stupefying.  However lovingly-tended this directory of SSL providers may be, it is still essentially just a directory. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not specious at all. The distinction between a list and a table and prose is primarily a matter of formatting. The article under discussion is formatted mostly as a table, and specifically a table comparing the attributes of various implementations of a technology. That is the same format used by many young comparison articles on Wikipedia, as pointed out above. This last point is why the support offered by WP:OSE is not a "stupefying" claim, but a perfectly comprehensible one. As for the article's title: in your (mis)interpretation of my statements above, you have put the cart before the horse. Finally, "specious" is a term carrying a connotation of deliberate deception, so I respectfully remind you to assume good faith. zazpot (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Connotation is not denotation, and no implication of deliberate deception was intended. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.