- Comparison of SSL certificates for web servers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I believe the closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. For the reasoning behind this belief, please see the discussion on the deleting editor's talk page. zazpot (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close Solid policy-based decision. The keep !votes offer no evidence of acceptable sources or sound policy-based reasons, despite the wiki-lawyering by Zazpot. As one of the contributors to the AfD discussion said, the claim that WP:OSE supports keeping this article is indeed "stupefying". --Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This really does read like an accusation of bad faith. My argument was, in a nutshell, that SSL certificates issued by CAs recognised by mainstream browsers, are inherently at least sufficiently notable to be tabulated and compared on Wikipedia - at least as much as the items included in other comparisons I linked to in the discussion. (Let's not forget: such certificates are things that Web users use potentially every time they surf the Web - it's a very significant and extensively deployed technology! Probably far more people use such certificates, and far more often, than use many of the items in those other comparison articles I linked. And yet the latter are longstanding on Wikipedia and have therefore set a precedent.) WP:OSE says, "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability[,] and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." So, you see, there is nothing stupefying about my invocation of WP:OSE in defence of the article under discussion. zazpot (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You really should read WP:AGF better. My comment is absolutely not an assumption of bad faith. Your tendency to wikilawyer, though, shows here, too. And I stand with "stupefying". This is absolutely the first time that I see OSE invoked as a "keep" reason. And I don't know much about certificates, nor need I: we are not here to rehash the arguments but only to see whether the close accurately reflected consensus and policy. --Randykitty (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You say, 'This is absolutely the first time that I see OSE invoked as a "keep" reason.' That suggests a disappointingly censorious tendency has prevailed among the discussions to which you have been party. I do not say that this tendency has originated with you, nor that you have adopted it; but I do say that if you or anyone else has become conditioned, by such tendencies, to overlook that WP:OSE cuts two ways, then that is a pity not only for the chance of a balanced judgment emerging from this discussion, but for Wikipedia as a whole. As for "wikilawyering", please note that WP:WL states, 'The word "Wikilawyering" typically has negative connotations [so] those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous.' You haven't backed it up, which is why I raised WP:AGF. Finally, in regard to your last sentence: it is unclear how any person can soundly assess whether the close accurately reflected consensus and policy without a reasonable appreciation of the meaning of the arguments used in the AfD discussion, which in turn requires a reasonable understanding of the topic of the article. I don't make any claims about your knowledge: it is you yourself who said, "I don't know much about certificates"; but I disagree that you were justified to follow that with, "nor need I." zazpot (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I maintain that you are wikilawyering and if you want to take that negatively, that's not my problem. During the AfD and again here you drop huge walls of text with lots of arguments and even coming up with completely new interpretations of an essay like OSE (despite, as Jasper Deng says below, this being superseded by GNG). If that is not wikilawyering, nothing is. For heaven's sake, you even wikilawyer about what wikilawyering is. And perhaps you have been party to AfD discussions where OSE was taken differently than it was intended, but in the hundreds of AfDs that I have participated in, this has never been done (and justifiedly so). --Randykitty (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Note to readers: I feel obliged to reply to some of the foregoing remarks, but doing so takes the discussion somewhat off topic, sorry.) You say, 'if you want to take that negatively, that's not my problem.' But it plainly is your responsibility, unless there is some part of 'The word "Wikilawyering" typically has negative connotations' that is eluding you. You say, 'you drop huge walls of text with lots of arguments'. The first part is untrue (I concisely address the points made by others, as I am doing now); but I do admit to using arguments. I do so not because I am a "Wikilawyer" but because that is how rational debate proceeds and because the AfD explicitly invokes "the merits of the arguments"; so I make no apology for doing so. Whether you think my arguments meritorious is another matter, but I try to make them so. Now, my interpretation of WP:OSE may not be yours, but that is not to say it is invalid, and I doubt it is novel; there is room for disagreement here, too. This brings me to my last point. Sadly, your saying "and justifiedly so" suggests you may after all have adopted the tendency I mentioned above. That is a pity. It reminds me of the punchline (only the punchline, mind, not the topic; I am not suggesting anything whatsoever about your views on that) of this Stewart Lee piece. As that's all I have to say in reply, I hope you will take it - especially the last part! - in good humour and in the friendly spirit in which it is intended; I appreciate that despite our disagreements, we're all devoting our time here because we want Wikipedia to be as good as it can be. zazpot (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this comment will matter much, but there's no such thing as inherent notability for a list of SSL certificates (and WP:N is a policy that overrides WP:OSE - in any case, you're going against the spirit of OSE by trying to save this article with the presence of others). Notability is doled out as in WP:Notability, not by seeming popularity or the existence of other pages.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, on what authority - or grounds, even - do you claim there is no such thing; or that I am going against the "spirit" of OSE? Simply stating that something is so does not make it so. zazpot (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Notability is a policy that each individual (thus ruling out any arguments based on sourcing for individual certificates, as this is a comparison) article must meet (with few exceptions, none of which cover this article), and OSE does not circumvent it in any way, shape or form, but instead is a useful shorthand for saying that an article must meet notability and other guidelines on an individual basis. Trying to say this article should be kept because another exists is against the spirit (intent) of OSE (because your comparison is not valid by policy - furthermore you never explicitly gave evidence of how OSE supposedly justifies keeping it, because it only says valid comparisons can be of assistance, not "This is a valid comparison, so OSE arguments must work here" (and frankly OSE is irrelevant when considering the notability-based arguments here, and because OSE is an essay and does not have the full force of policy)). The weakness of the keep arguments was why the AfD was closed as a delete even though the keep:delete ratio was 3:4. If you don't listen to what others tell you, it's not my problem (as per Randykitty's comment above).--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for unpacking your reasoning. I hear what you are saying, and it is clear we differ in our interpretations of the guidance WP provides, in what we consider to be sufficient reasoning, in our interpretations of (whether a consensus for deletion was achieved in) the AfD, and perhaps also in our inclinations (independent of the foregoing considerations) towards keeping or deleting WP content generally. With these fundamental differences between us I agree with your remark in your "Endorse close" (below) that it is unlikely we would agree on the matter at hand. zazpot (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close as original nom. I had ceased replying to Zazpot after it became clear that we could not ever agree, but that does not mean that I do not feel that his comments are as Randykitty describes above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note from closing administrator I stand by my closure and see no reason to re-hash everything here. If there is something unclear I will be happy to answer. JodyB talk 12:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse-I see no indication that the closer failed to evaluate the arguments correctly.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse nom is free to disagree with the close if they wish, but there's no reason to overturn it and no reason to accuse the closer of anything. As is often said, DRV isn't AFD round 2. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn for reasons I have given above and at linked resources. I think I have said all that I have time to say at this point in defence of the article, and have also given adequate grounds for DRV. zazpot (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. A reasonable reading of the consensus as expressed in the AfD. (I was not involved in the AfD, by the way.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ' temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review I apologize for not doing so earlier in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 15:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus Personally I think it very clear that this article should be kept, but it seems from the discussion both at the AfD and here that there is no consensus about what standards apply to this sort of article. A list of things which are notable enough to have WP articles is a standard type of article, and this is a list with some additions. The arguments for deletion were incorrect: there is no need for third party sources for routine facts about product--we normally use the literature from the manufacturer. We couldn't use evaluation or opinion from such sources, but that's not what this article is doing. It is not a catalog--it lists the key products from those vendors important enough for an article, and is therefore discriminate--that's not as clear as if we had articles on the individual certificates, but perhaps we should. When we have standard coverage in a group of articles of a given type, that we have them establishes the guideline, and picking on one like this is a hope to gain a local consensus to overcome accepted consensus. But consensus can change, and aafd is the way to find out. But there was and is no agreement that it has changed. The closer saw consensus when there wasn't any, and is thus a supervote. The closer obviously had their own opinion, which he gives frankly as the closing rationale, and closed according to it. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus I support User:DGG's reasons. While the list may look like a catalog, the criteria for inclusion are not settled at all. Note the peculiar state of CAcert.org and the youngness of Certificate Authority Security Council. Commercial CAs seem to be able to offer formal guarantees that "free" ones cannot afford. However, while commercial guarantees are a convincing argument for anti-fraud mechanisms that can secure online shopping, it is not yet well-established that security is a subject confined to the commercial world —Snowden disclosures are minimally concerned with online shopping. The value of this to-be-restored list, IMHO, is to let readers wonder at what inclusion criteria it implies, because we are not able to describe those criteria explicitely. ale (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- The cosing administrator's rationale seems to me to be a fair summary of the discussion. Reyk YO! 07:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
