- 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 of the debate was keep. Ifnord 16:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary has an entry for code signing. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. James084 03:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, was missing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot/C4, no point tearing it up. Also has an entry at pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term Kappa 03:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand: per Kappa. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- More than a dicdef, potentially. Keep and expand'. --Calton | Talk 05:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand JoshuaZ 06:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Kappa. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just qualifies as a stub --Ruby 14:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. A valid topic; a stub that begins at the beginning. Smerdis of Tlön 15:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep and expand A valid topic. -- Siva1979Talk to me 16:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs serious work, but potential is there (cryptography stuff) Avi 16:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The problem is the such stubs remain stubs for long time. For red link someone may be more motivated to create full article. Pavel Vozenilek 20:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've often heard people speculate about redlinks motivating creation but there really doesn't seem to be any way to test this hypothesis. Users expand stubs all the time, too. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ditto, and with stubs even the newbies can participate. Carlossuarez46 20:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and I'm expanding it right now. Guy 22:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Now more than a dic def. Still needs a cleanup & expansion, but overall a good improvement. --Karnesky 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am expanding the article. Discussing when code signing should be used, how it works, and how it ensures that linux distributions manage to "work" dispite the fact they are often spread over a large number of insecure mirrors I think deserves writing up. Mrjeff 23:06, 23 February 2006 (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.