Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StartCom


 * 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

StartCom

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Corporate vanispamcruftisement. Speedy declined, contested prod. Speedy delete. MER-C 09:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See also :
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan.  — Æ.   ✉  00:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if they can be added during the debate, but there is also
 * StartCom Enterprise Linux
 * StartCom MultiMedia EditionDGG 01:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are both redirects to StartCom Linux so there is no need to AfD them. (Requestion 02:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Delete As corporate spam with multiple problems, including conflicts of interest and lack of sources. There is nothing to indicate the notability of the subject, either. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom, and as per user:Lankybugger. DES (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this article and sub-articles. Subject lacks reliable, independent sources of information. No possible way to create an encyclopedia article.  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Lacks reliable due to COI not sure about neutrality WP:NPOV, seems to be original research WP:NOR.--Hu12 20:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep You are using phrases only, instead of pointing out a real problems, if there were any. There are three different articles and certainly none of your "arguments" points out even one concrete reference to one of them. This is not serious. Stop spaming the articles of StartCom! — Startcom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Delete. I read through the story of the interaction with the Startcom company at User talk:Startcom. This company has had since December 2006 to get this straightened out, and they still haven't come up with reliable sources giving third-party opinions. Aren't there any Israeli magazines that have written about them? The bit about offering a cheaper certification seems like it should have got some press coverage, but I see nothing here. I think they aren't taking our policy seriously. Could it be a reading comprehension problem? It's time to delete the articles. EdJohnston 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd be more specific, but the COI SPA hasn't attended to the policies and guidelines previously cited, so why waste my (figurative) breath?    — Athænara   ✉  22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, perhaps you all should differentiate between the StartCom article an the entries about StartCom Linux and StartCom Certification Authority. I can understand, that information about StartCom "the company" isn't so exciting. However I don't think that this applies to the later two articles, which in my opinion have a place here. See also discussion pages of the two. — Startcom (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (UTC).
 * Delete StartCom only. The other two articles have specific purposes and are notable. &mdash; CJewell (talk to me) 03:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep for StartCom Certification Authority per Stpeter below. Keep for some version of these 3 articles. I don't know if that means merging all three, deleting 2, etc. I've spent 3 hours researching Startcom and it appears marginally notable -- see my detailed comments on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/StartCom. In particular, I find the c't and DistroWatch references compelling. I think notability is the issue for this AfD, not the fact that it was spammed, obnoxious as that might be. Also, I sense this company's notability is growing with time.--A. B. (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Even the article on StartCom Certification Authority, the most plausible of the three, has no reliable sources by my criteria. I agree that the c't article is interesting, but it's basically a warning against using StartCom certificates! And it's a web site.  The mentions on the DistroWatch site, if you look at them, sound like multiple occurrences of the same press release. If one of the StartCom articles listed in this AfD is kept, where will editors go to find reliable material to update it, given that StartCom seems to get no notice in the regular press? I think that StartCom fails WP:CORP and it's so obscure that any article about it will be hard to maintain. EdJohnston 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All Linux distributions have a reference to Distrowatch, since it's an important web site. Distrowatch indeed announces most - if not all - distribution releases. This is what they do. Obviously for someone familiar with the Linux world, not so for others perhaps. Startcom 17:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * StartCom has released so far about 7 operating systems, 1 failed (not released), about 10 update releases and a few release candidates (test versions). Startcom 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep for StartCom Certification Authority. This certification authority (CA) is the root CA for the intermediate certification authority (ICA) run by the XMPP Standards Foundation at xmpp.net. This ICA has been issuing cost-free digital certificates to administrators of Jabber servers on the public Internet since December 2006. As of 2007-04-05, this ICA has issued several hundred certificates. It is helpful for server administrators to find information at Wikipedia about the StartCom Certification Authority as they decide whether to obtain such certificates. It is also helpful for developers of Jabber client software and Jabber server software to find that information as they decide whether to bundle the StartCom Certification Authority's root certificate with their software. This information is also helpful for end users of the relevant Jabber clients and deployed servers (e.g., the jabber.org server, which uses a digital certificate issued by the ICA, has over 220,000 registered users, many of whom may be interested in finding objective information about the StartCom Certification Authority. I strongly encourage retention of this article. Stpeter 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According to his user page, Stpeter is Executive Director of the XMPP Standards Foundation. --A. B. (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment It still doesn't confer a license to spam even when it's true. Lets not forget, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising especially considering the Conflict of interest, and lack of Reliable Published Sources. Perhaps organizations such as yours, who use this CA, should contribute funds to better inform server administrators, developers and end users who may be interested in of StartCom's cost-free benefits. Notability and Neutrality are important objectives at Wikipedia, Promotional use of Wikipedia, unfortunatly is considered bad practice, even if well intended.--Hu12 20:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all 3 StartCom articles on violations of WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM. The articles also suffer from a market-speak tone that lacks WP:NPOV but that can be fixed with judicious editting. One problem of notability I have is that I'm a huge Linux fan and I've been visiting DistroWatch on a weekly basis for the past several years and this AfD is the first I've ever heard of StartCom Linux. I just never noticed them before. Another troubling point is that StartCom Linux does not even currently register on DistroWatch's top 100 popularity list. Linux distributions are a dime a dozen and WP:NOT every one of them should have a Wikipedia article. (Requestion 01:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Perhaps see http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity . Most likely also never saw this: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20050725#fdow — Startcom (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:49, April 8 2007 (UTC) (UTC).


 * Strong Delete as per consensus and CosmicPenguin, also WP:COI; Weak Keep for StartCom Linux, also as per CosmicPenguin. --HubHikari 09:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all - please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This debate is only for the merits of these 3 articles.  Responses to your points:  The age of the articles is not considered as part of this debate - all articles must uphold WP:V and WP:N criteria at all times.  These critera must also be upheld regardless of the existence of other distros in Wikiepdia.  Again, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Unique or not, the StartCom Certification Authority page must be sourced like all the others, and it definately fails WP:SPAM.  Nobody here is is working for any other Linux distributions or other entities - our only goal is to maintain a reliable and respected encyclopedia.  In addition, many of us are also part of the open source community that you benefit from.  This is the first AfD for  all of these articles - so the primary notability has not been established by consensus.  If the articles do survive this process, then you can use that as precedent in future AfD discussions, but remember that consensus can change.  Strong Delete StartCom and StartCom Certification Authority per WP:CORP but weak keep StartCom Linux due to very lose WP:SOFTWARE criteria. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Concerning the StartCom CA, I suggest that somebody improves it. Merely deleting is unproductive and a waste. And I liked the phrase "that YOU are of the open source community from which I benefit"...that's great! Yes, this is the attitude here... — Startcom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.