Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 May 1
2007 May 3 >

2 May 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Beat Up a White Kid Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There are no reliable sources for the claims made in this article, the closer based their close on supposed sources that only they have access to, but even they admitted that none of the sources use this term. Even if it were allowed to stand, it's a term used to discuss one incident in one location, not using that term, and with no credible references that anybody involved in the incident ever used this term. Improperly closed as a keep, when at best it would have been a "no consensus", regardless of any other points. Corvus cornix 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. The closing statement doesn't read at all as if it is evaluating consensus; it reads more like a new argument. -Amarkov moo! 23:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, nom seems to have the right idea. The close doesn't seem to address any kind of consensus. --Coredesat 00:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, abuse of admin discretion. Closer should have offered his evidence to the debate (or to a review, if necessary) and let others judge the weight (and level of non-triviality). I'm not a policy wonk, and I did consider the possible applicability of IAR to this case, but I think this went just a little too far over the line. Xtifr tälk 01:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternative option: Overturn and immediately re-close as no-consensus. This is now actually my preferred choice. The first time I looked at the discussion, I thought "no consensus" was a long shot, but on a second look, I'm not quite sure why I was so pessimistic. I agree that if it would likely be read as no-consensus, then relisting is a bit excessive, but I don't think that quickly re-closing it to reflect a more appropriate reading of consensus would be a big deal. Xtifr tälk 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Not an abuse per se. The admin in question should have made the new information as a keep opinion at the end and let another admin close. However, given the new information the end result is very clear and there's no need to be process wonky about it. JoshuaZ 03:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I don't think the closing statement puts a close to the argument in any way. It probably should have been a "no consensus" as nom says. JuJube 03:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist optional by definition... if deletion isn't really being called for here I'm not sure why we're having the DRV. The difference between a "keep" closure and a "no consensus" is largely just theoretical, there's no tangible difference. Admittedly someone else probably should have closed this, but that's not an issue we need DRV to address this time. Am I missing something here? --W.marsh 04:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a DRV doesn't reach the decision to relist, you get a bunch of "too soon after last time" opinions, and it gets speedy kept. And that doesn't really give more discussion. -Amarkov moo! 04:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a valid point... but do people even think this should be deleted though? It seems like everyone but the nom just objects to how it was closed and the word used, not to the fact that the content was kept. Am I wrong? --W.marsh 04:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I, at least, think that it's possible that it should have been deleted, although I'm currently undecided about my opinion. -Amarkov moo! 13:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist/Rename/Merge somewhere Part of the issue seems to be the naming, the general content appears to be ok and describe a "known" phenomena, the title itself may have NPOV issues if not widely used (the two sources are the same paper and may indeed be nothing more than sensationalist coverage). The confined locality of the phenomena is perhaps not ideal and the general concept maybe better discussed as a small section of a more general article on racial tension. --pgk 06:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Admins are not exempt from having their evidence scrutinized. ~ trialsanderrors 07:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The nominator isn't questioning it's inclusion but rather the naming which can easily be handled by renaming the article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. The outcome of this debate would clearly not have been a "delete." It would probably normally have been a "no consensus" which defaults to keep anyway. There was nothing wrong with this debate or its outcome. If someone wants to AfD it again later they may but I *would* think it's too soon after the last debate to do so now. Mangojuicetalk 13:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I can't say I thought much of the article, but the sourcing did just manage to qualify. DGG 17:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If DRV is about evaluating the contents of the article (note: This is not what DRV's project page says it's about), then Endorse to keep. If instead DRV is about evaluating whether proper process was followed on AfD, the Relist, because closing admins should make their damned arguments in the body of the AfD, not in the closing remarks (i.e. come on, people). --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The AfD should have been either relisted or have no consensus. Sr13 (T|C) 01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Once again I screwed up. Everyone above is right: it should have been relisted with the new information, not closed as keep. Gosh, what was I thinking? Sorry to all who have spent their time looking over this. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original closing. The result was keep and AfD debate itself was interpreted correctly by the closer. The “furthermore” information added to the AfD by the closer regarding the title of the article is not new as it was from Footnote 8 and Footnote 22 of the article, among other items. While the closer may have sought to quell concerns over a dispute over the title of the article, this does not take away from the fact that the AfD debate itself was interpreted correctly by the closer. Closers often seek to soften the impact of the close on those not part of the consensus in hopes that everyone can move on. Relisting is not an appropriate action to take to address the dispute over the title of the article and DRV and AfD are not the proper place to dispute the title of the article. -- Jreferee 15:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Massacres in Peloponnese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was recently deleted although i provided reliable and verifiable sources for the quotations included in the article and they are not based on the works of one single writer. Almost every single historian who wrote about the issue mentionned about the occurence of the massacres.The admin that deleted the article said he would not restore it eventhough i showed him the scanned versions of the pages, can some other admin come and help to settle the dispute? --laertes d 08:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note by deleting admin: This was deleted as a piece of plagiarism / copyvio. It's a copy-and-paste job strung together from snippets taken literally from three or four books. The evidence is at User talk:Laertes d#Massacres in Peloponnese. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Just changing a few words around isn't enough to avoid copyright infringement. Almost all of your text was literally taken from the sources. To avoid such problems, you should take the information from the sources (rather than the words) and share those in your own words when creating an article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted if the examples given are there throughout the whole article, as seems likely. If they're a section, the section can be removed instead of the article. Not that it's any excuse for this one, but quite a number of other WP articles would probably fall if examined this carefully. DGG 18:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Answering MacGyverMagic, if i did include my own sentences probably it would have been deleted much earlier of being accused nationalist propaganda material as already being accused, eventhough almost all the sentences are taken from sources.. And i said in Future perfect sunrise's talk page, only parts of the article were from the book of McCarthy, the rest is from first hand sources like Jewish virtual library and from the book of William St. Clair, That Greece Might Still Be Free The Philhellenes in the War of Independence, Oxford University Press London 1972 p.2 ISBN 0192151940. I personally have chosen the quotations and cited them. For every citation made there was already a citation mark in the article and i didnt represent them as my own words. I even scanned one page from St. Clair to prove that, how can that be considered as a simple plagiarism or copy paste?

Anyway, i now have access to the books McCarthy used as citations in his article..I am going to make the citations directly from these sources, without using any intermediaries and i am not going to include one single line from the article from which i have been accused of producing copy paste material..Here are the the scannings of some parts of these sources i now possess

George Finlay, History of the Greek Revolution and the Reign of King Otho, edited by H. F. Tozer, Clarendon Presss, Oxfor, 1877 Reprint london 1971 SBN 900834 12 9

Image:Finlaydd.jpg

Image:Finlay_153.jpg

W. Alison Phillips, The War of Greek independence 1821 to 1833, London 1897

Image:Phillipsaa.jpg

There are many suxh citations in these books which cant be found in the book of McCarthy. And i already showed another scanned page from St. Clair. Im not planning to mention from all the atrocities word by word but i think there has to be an article dealing with these events, ultimate point here is virtually every single historian mention about these massacres when talking about Greek war of independence..--laertes d 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of the above comments, allow re-creation.'DGG' 22:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The copyvio speedy of course doesn't preclude a clean rewrite from scratch, that goes without saying. However, any such page had better take a lot of care avoiding to become a POV fork of Greek War of Independence, which basically covers the same topic and where Laertes d has been trying (against a lot of opposition) to put in much the same material. And, I hate to say it, but Laertes' reaction in this case doesn't fill me with confidence about such a future rewrite. He has shown no signs of understanding what was wrong with his previous text. We don't want him to use different sources next time, we want him to use them better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for these oppositions are clear, i guess , some Greek users just dont want any mention of the issue of massacres neither in the main article nor in a separete article..If you look to the history of the page you will notice that proper materials has been deleted on many occasions. My edits were made because some Greek users just doesnt want to accept the occurences of these massacres and then i had to use different sources. And just read the massacre section in that article, who is making POV, me? there are such wordings like "engrazed Turks" etc. it wasnt only me, many other Turkish users who happen to be interested in the subject protested in the kinds of editing that has been going on there. take a look to the discussion page. And i said a couple days ago that im going to create a separate article in the discussion page about the massacres in Peloponnese since the kinds of editing were purposely made to overshadow them..--laertes d 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted after the above comment. Pretty self-explanatory. -Amarkov moo! 00:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see for other people who dissent the editings of the main article for instance:

".. If the idea is to collect relevant facts and present them dispassionately (as we are encouraged to do whenever similar white washing takes place in Turkey related topics), I would like to collaborate. But, I do not have the energy to guard against this sort of editing and will bow out if this is to be considered normal and leave Greek editors to write their version of history in peace, rather than have it be assumed that the resulting mess also incorporates Turkish historiography. Regards --Free smyrnan 08:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) No, I do not consider it OK. The first atrocity in the revolution was not the murder of the Patriarch. As long as I do not see a non-Turk also step up and revert/edit/correct this kind of editing, I am without hope with regards to this article. Collaboration is a different animal than reluctant compromise. --Free smyrnan 11:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC Concur... I didn't understand the point of the latest expansion and re-ordering of some info... Baristarim 08:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC) "

--laertes d 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, i realy didnt understand the logic of above comment, lets keep deleted and then a well known, a well documented series of massacres remain unmentioned..Meanwhile funnily there is a separate article of Chios Massacre which took place at the same period of time ..(actually after) And without one single quotation..--laertes d 00:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You may have included some sentences of your own, but articles should be entirely your own work (save some instances in which quotations from famous people or scholars are useful). Chios Massacre may not have had any quotations, but there are no rules saying those are required. It does have a citation (which is required) which has been there for at least one month. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were already some sentence of my own, anyway i rewrite the article basing it directly from the books of(Especially from the scanned pages that i uploaded so that any can check):

George Finlay, History of the Greek Revolution and the Reign of King Otho, edited by H. F. Tozer, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1877 Reprint london 1971 SBN 900834 12 9

W. Alison Phillips, The War of Greek independence 1821 to 1833, London 1897 and

William St. Clair, That Greece Might Still Be Free The Philhellenes in the War of Independence, Oxford University Press London 1972 p.2 ISBN 0192151940.

im planning to re-up the article at some time, if not with its current name but with one another. none of the quotations or citation are coming from McCarthy article but directy from the above cited works. There are many things i chose not include.(Depictions of atrocities) i didnt have much time to work on it , feel free to criticize it or delete some parts of it but please do not wipe it out.. --laertes d 12:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

check this: Peloponnese Massacres, if there is any problem please say it first before wiping it out of existance. The reality of massacres are not an issue of dispute and as i said i didnt make any citations from the article of Mccarthy, all of them are coming from scanned pages of above mentioned books..--laertes d 13:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Invicta Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Useful information, was hastily deleted same day as creation. 24.249.108.133 08:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Temporary undelete and list on AFD. Being founded by a former KGB spy (Victor Sheymov) may make it notable, which would mean a speedy A7 doesn't apply. A few more eyes to make sure wouldn't hurt. - Mgm|(talk) 10:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, not because the founder was a spy - government employees go into private business all the time, it's called the revolving door - but because it contained one reliable source focusing on the subject (Register article) which should be enough to avoid speedy deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close. Article has been restored, no need for DRV. Rockstar (T/C) 18:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • User talk:Pce3@ij.net – Deletion endorsed. (For transparency's sake, I'll add that the deleted content is nothing special -- a disagreeable user objecting to policy.) – Xoloz 17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User talk:Pce3@ij.net (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Pce3@ij.net|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have moved the following from "History only undeletions" because of the discussion it generated. Nardman1 02:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User pages of indef blocked users aren't kept around. John Reaves (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What harm would restoring the page history do? Nardman1 21:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would recreate a page that it has been agreed upon should be deleted. John Reaves (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who agreed? Nardman1 01:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one, really; if I recall correctly, the concept of temporary user pages was introduced without consensus, and no one thought that it was a bad idea at the time. I may be wrong, though. Assuming that it's an iron rule (which it isn't), any admin should be able to provide the undeleted page if a viewer is curious. GracenotesT § 02:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'll provide a copy of the last version if that's all Nardman1 wants, I just don't think it should be restored. John Reaves (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have my email address set. And please don't provide me with the very last version, that's a image deletion warning I've already read. That's how I learned of this page. Nardman1 09:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep history deleted. Indef blocked user. Why not? Sr13 (T|C) 02:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to see that talk page, like the block log says. :) Nardman1 02:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that your curiosity is sufficient reason to undelete a page. John Reaves (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With everything going on tonight, I'm kinda curious now too. Don't have to keep it around, but a 24hr undelete would be acceptable for both parties I think. It gets deleted in the end, and it satisfies the rest of us. Ghostalker 06:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, WP:DENY. >Radiant< 08:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Isn't there anything more interesting on Wikipedia than why someone got banned? I mean, as we're trying to write an encyclopaedia, I'd hope so... In short, curiosity isn't a good reason to undelete banned users' pages. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per Sam. Send Nardman1 a copy by email if he's interested in it, but I don't see any reason to undelete it in general. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Casual Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article is not using a website template/infobox, it is an organization or non-profit community, thus it is not required to meet the Website article criteria. There are thousands of other articles with less popularity and notability as mine, surely popularity isn't the issue. JimCS 01:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reject undeletion The deleting admin gave a clear reason why the article was deleted in the deletion log: The organization in question does not meet criteria A7 in our criteria for speedy deletion. Your reason to undelete isn't very good as well. Sr13 (T|C) 02:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Still no claims of notability, sources, or what have you. Wickethewok 06:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid A7, notability not asserted. WP:COI also appears to apply. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid CSD A7. Looking at the last version, the article contains a brief introduction as to what it is, a brief history, and information about how it uses XHTML/CSS. Nothing here asserting notability... and, no, it is a website. Creator/nominator's lack of other contributions and potential conflict of interest, as well as the WP:WAX rationale, are noted. --Kinu t/c 19:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • 09... – the community doesn't vote on what is or is not legally problematic (and it's been oversighted anyway). – bainer (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Note by —msikma (user, talk): the above number is not the actual relevant number in this case. The article that has been deleted has an F in front of the second 9. It was changed on this page due to the blacklisting of the actual number, which was apparently done to cope with the spamming of the number in multiple articles. (It would have been nice if an admin had left that message here when he decided to blacklist the number.) —msikma (user, talk) 06:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

09... (restore|cache|AfD)

This hex string about a HD-DVD process key used to decode DVD, possibly allowing illegal copying. The article itself is about the info and controversy about DMCA notice being sent around the net asking people to remove it (including those who merely posting about the discovery of such number.) More info here
I nominated this article for deletion due to notability concern (and nothing else, a Google search suggests a possible legitimate topic). An admin then speedy deleted it along with the AfD itself. The reason is mere "DMCA will not be happy". I interpret this as a possible legal threat. From my understanding, it is not libel, and it does not satisfy any of the CSD criteria. Even if it is a possible violation of DMCA, that's not the job of an admin to speedy delete it - that's the job of WP:OFFICE.

If an admin chose to speedy delete this, I will being the case to Admin board and a possible WP:RfAr.SYSS Mouse 00:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this matter to deletion review simply for process concern, due to an admin speedy deleting the article simply for a possible DMCA notice, instead of removing the key and/or renaming the article. There is an article named HD DVD encryption key controversy that I consider a proper replacement of this key. SYSS Mouse 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Horrible name for an article; all useful information from it should be added to Advanced Access Content System instead. --cesarb 00:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is, it is not proper to speedy delete it. SYSS Mouse 00:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmm. Does that mean this page is about to be oversighted too? I guess I can write what I like here, then. Fnord. – Gurch 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted It doesn't qualify for speedy, and it should be a WP:OFFICE issue... but why undelete it so we can delete it later? I'd like to throw in that mention of the article's name is required to discuss it, so it should not be oversighted unless the wikilawyers receive a notice and decide to cave to it. Please don't cave wikilawyers. --Auto(talk / contribs) 00:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which law are we breaking? Take breaking copyright law with the key; and on a less prosecutable level, there's discovering and releasing the key. I doubt that spreading the key is an offense, and at this point, certainly not an actionable offense, although the latter is less relevant. It may be an issue of notability, but why salt it? We don't know what the future will hold. GracenotesT § 01:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can request for unsalting if new information is provided. Generally takes five minutes or less. Rockstar (T/C) 01:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, because it was deleted by a formal deletion process and with policy. Oh wait... GracenotesT § 01:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like it was deleted because it was a violation of the DMCA. And, given what I know about this aritcle, it was. Rockstar (T/C) 01:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Distributing a device that decrypts a DVD, or initially releasing the exploit, seems illegal. But this? GracenotesT § 01:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The moment somebody tells me numbers are copyrightable, I'll go and put my dibs on number 1. -- Wesha 05:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • er, redirect to a better title? I haven't seen the article so I can't comment on it's merits for undeletion. Nardman1 01:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, good point. Can you imagine typing this into the search box? Rockstar (T/C) 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I could, and it hasn't even been around for that long. GracenotesT § 01:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know I haven't mentioned this, but I think that it would be fine as a redirect—I don't think it's notable as a mathematical number, but it is subsumed by a seemingly notable event, worthy of a section in an article (let's see what happens, though.) GracenotesT § 02:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is someone who already knew what it was would c/p it into the search box. This info is on other websites, no need for us to have it. Nardman1 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. One, terrible title. Two, a needless content fork. There is no compelling reason to think that this exploit needs to be split from HD-DVD, where it is already covered. Three, while an article on the exploit may be warranted, it may also be a violation of the Section 103 of the DMCA to post the actual code of the exploit. There is no particular reason to wait for an office action; we don't need to publish the code of the exploit and we certainly shouldn't make it the title of an article. Thatcher131 01:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per reasons stated by Thatcher 131. Sr13 (T|C) 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher131 was previously involved in speedy deletion of the article, although he did not disclose this in his above comment.

-AmendmentNumberOne 02:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems okay to me: after all, this is not a ballot; it's a discussion. Analyzing his arguments, 1. Not a reason to delete an article, at least not the way Thatcher131 phrases it 2. If it was deleted as a content fork, I'm sure there won't be prejudice to it being recreated as, say, a redirect (sans content) 3. The legality of articles is generally reflected in policy/guidelines. When it's not, that's WP:OFFICE's job, not ours. GracenotesT § 02:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - The title is the now notable number the article would be about. The number is notable because the DMCA has been misused, in clear violation of United States 1st Amendment law, to censor the number. It also notable because there are now multiple sources that refer to the number and its censorship, although some of those articles are themselves being censored. Should Wikipedia censor itself because of the threat of future censorship? Of course not. The article title is not illegal because of the 1st Amendment and it is not a copyright violation because it is a title. This number is a valid encyclopedia topic and article title. -AmendmentNumberOne 02:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the first and only edit by this user at this time. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This number is now notable, for example it's listed as a notable case of Streisand effect -- Wesha 05:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the above! SOMEONE TAKE NOTICE AND UNPROTECT THE SITE! READ THE ABOVE! NOT A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.219.105 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirect to the HDDVD article. That's what I wanted to do when I got to the page; create a redirect.--Planetary 02:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the article to HDDVD. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 02:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, or Keep and Rename, apparently this topic has made the entire front page of digg. I'm thinking one of those links must be reliable source. --Rayc 03:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless Why its pointless The Wikipedia Foundation doesn't want the key on the site, and so it won't be. Sadly, it appears as though this is the beginning of heavy handed censorship on Wikipedia. --142.68.40.44 04:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with HDDVD. Not that this page actually matters... --Bky1701 04:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted due to DMCA concerns. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One, the name of the article is not an argument for deletion of the article. It's not actionable, it has no bearing on whether the article should or should not exist. Two, Wired has published the number for the past couple of months. Any conjectures about DMCA are useless at this point; the fact is, no one knows for sure whether it is or is not legal to publish the number. At any rate, Illegal prime also publishes an illegal number. Until a cease and desist order is sent, the legal status shouldn't have a bearing on whether or not the article should exist. zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete The hex string has become a major issue that the online community is dealing with... see http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/02/0235228 http://digg.com/ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=09-9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0&btnG=Search (20k google results, about 40 if you included varations). The censorship of the number is a major issue. If you want to claim that the "ownership" of the number is enough of a reason to remove it from Wiki its a sad day... While the number may not have been apporiate, given the increasing fervor of debate over its posting, and the questionable takedown notices it is EXTREMELY noteworthy. Monty845 04:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect As per Nardman1 sendai 04:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. Does not qualify under any CSD criteria. Arguments to the legality are moot because YANAL and even if you are, you are not Wikipedia's lawyer. If WP:OFFICE wants to weigh in, that's another thing. The article should be evaluated on its own merits, which is what AfD is for. Those arguing for the article to be merged or redirected are clearly attempting to have that discussion here, where it is out of place. This needs an AfD. – Þ  04:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fail to understand why this was deleted from Wikipedia. Wired has had this string of numbers, which is all it is, published on their website since Feb 13 of this year (http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/02/the_new_hddvdbl.html). Without something that actually enables circumvention I don't understand how this would fall under the DMCA. And besides all that this has now evolved into a story about censorship and DMCA abuse in it's own right (particularly with what has just happened to Digg). -G
  • Redirect. It's clearly notable. It's also a reasonable title for an article, by the criterion that someone might look for an article under that title; currently, a google search for the text of the number returns 9700 hits.--Fashionslide 04:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.125.208.102 (talk) 2007-05-02T14:32:01
  • Merge with HD-DVD. I have nothing against publishing this number, but it has not reason to have it's own article, especially with that title, which will be hard for people to find. Noldoaran 04:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with HD-DVD. Copyrighting a number is not possible and treating it as a circumvention mechanism under the DMCA is stretching the law to the point of absurdity. Publishing it far and wide is both legally and morally right. --Afed 04:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't that the number is copyrighted. As a part of the text of the code, it is protected from misuse by the federal law of the United States. I assume good faith here, but to me you are implying that violation of law in the face of morality is correct. That's not in line with our policy or process. Teke
    It's not a part of the text of the code, just a constant embedded in the machine code. It's no more copyrightable than if the code contained something like #DEFINE PI = 3.14159. --Afed 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to HD DVD. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to search Wikipedia for this number to find out what all the fuss is about. —Ben FrantzDale 04:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Unencyclopedic, legal concerns, et cetera posted above. As for the "speedy deletion" of the article, I've long considered there to be a difference between a speedy deletion and deletion on site to protect the project. This is the penultimate IAR that an administrator to do, and they usually expect a talk page message at the minimum for accountability for their action. I see no problem with the previous deletion. This article was not befitting of the project. We provide free content, but not a way to provide free content.Teke 05:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find this ridiculous. It's a freaking hexadecimal number. At a very basic level, it's a number. And everyone is going nuts over it. Wikipedia is about information, people should know why this number proves so popular lately. Put in HD-DVD at the very least. Jklinect 06:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect At this point, it seems quite possible that someone could really not know the significance of this number (for example, by receiving this as a blog comment, etc). This number has its own significance at this point, much like pi. Bowing to fears of DMCA challenges even though it's not at all clear that this in fact a violation is likely to lead to even more chilling effects like this. - Afiler 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put into normal process Legal concerns are not lay editor's matters, and IANAL's should not be making those decisions. Kick back to AfD, since until WP:OFFICE decides (or not) a complete wipe, this key will be in deletion logs, page debates, slashdot articles, indeed, even in this edit summary. Ronabop 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete or Merge This has become to big an issue to just ignore. It's information, it's relevant, let people learn about it. - Pyro19 05:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. We have criteria for speedy deletion. These criteria do not include "AACS Processing key. DMCA no likey". Speedily deleting this is an abuse of the rules; it is not anyone's business, even an admin, to decide that an article violates a law and therefore he must delete the article out of process. That's what WP:OFFICE is for. And I highly doubt that a proper AfD will result in deletion of the article; there are plenty of Google hits for the number and it's obviously well known and relevant things can be said about it. A case could be made for merging the article (but keeping the number); but that's what the AfD is for, not speedy deletion. Ken Arromdee 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the content to HD DVD or AACS, keep the key out. Pshew. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect somewhere. I copied in the key to see if Wikipedia had an article on it's discovery, and the resultant furor. — PyTom 05:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - rationale for deletion does not fall under WP:CSD. Also a curious note - nearly 300,000 hits for the hex string with hyphens (linked on slashdot) ugen64 05:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete or merge. Should go under HD-DVD and perhaps under Internet meme. This is by the way not the first case - see Illegal prime --Denoir 06:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete This is a valid artical. It documents an emerging trend on the internet and is some what like a current news event. I have seen mentions of this number on many websites without explanation and this is justified irregardless of other concerns as a news event. It also is not a legal worry because it is just a number that has no creative or artistic value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blue loonie (talk • contribs) 06:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Undelete This is a valid artical. It documents an emerging trend on the internet and is some what like a current news event. I have seen mentions of this number on many websites without explanation and this is justified irregardless of other concerns as a news event. It also is not a legal worry because it is just a number that has no creative or artistic value.Blue loonie 06:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion junk and that's all there is to it. JuJube 06:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Given the fact that Digg has been shutdown, Slashdot is buzzing with this story, and the media outlets will probably have it on TV soon, it's just asinine to delete it. The speedy deletion looks like it WAS abused, but since it can be undone, I'm not concerned. This number is all over the place, and people who want to know what it is are going to come here to find out. When a new technology hits the market, this site is one of the first to have a page on it; why should this be any different? And before people start crying "The sky is falling" over how they think this is a DMCA violation, I'd like to point out that this is a number first off. Second, (as mentioned above) you can't just type this number into your PC and have your HD-DVD magically play. Third, even IF Wikipedia were to get a DMCA over this, it'd be an abuse of the DMCA, and the sender would be in more trouble then even the worst pirates out there. Either this place is an encyclopedia, a repository of knowledge the likes of which the world has never seen... or it's just another site that caters to select parties. Ghostalker 06:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes the story of the Digg DVD crack encyclopaedic, and fit for inclusion in digg, it does not make the key itself encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS - Sorry about changing the hex key up top. With the spam filter in place, I can't add a comment cause it looks like I'm adding the key maliciously. Ghostalker
  • Undelete and refer to AFD. Only applicable Speedy Deletion case is G9, and that would require a WP:OFFICE flag. (My original comment was longer but got wiped due to the bloody spam filter.) --Goobergunch|? 06:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, then merge into HD DVD or Advanced Access Content System - there are already potentially liable numbers on Wikipedia at the illegal prime article. Based on my understanding that the MPAA will let us know when they want us to take this content down, via a takedown notice (which WP:OFFICE would need to handle—not the administrators), I'd say that there is no real reason to delete this content. Whether this number is illegal or not remains to be seen. Other illegal numbers have never been found to be a violation of the DMCA due to their nature. Keeping this content off of Wikipedia is, in my opinion, legal paranoia. It is my belief that this paranoia is largely unfounded, although I can understand those who disagree. —msikma (user, talk) 06:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC) (Oops, changed "copyright paranoia" to "legal paranoia". My mistake.)[reply]
  • Comment - it should be noted that this is truly a notable number, by the way. This debate should solely be about legal aspects, and not about inclusion rationale. There are loads of sites covering this, lots of them very notable. Just try Google, or Google News. There are even several articles mentioning the Digg controversy. Be sure to use the correct number to search, and not the censored one at the top of this debate. —msikma (user, talk) 07:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentStrongly agree with msikma. In addition the longer that this remains deleted, the louder the cry "Wikipedia censors The Number!" Which may end up bigger than the stories about digg... sendai 07:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted pending contact with legal counsel --Iamunknown 07:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - legal quagmire and may be an OFFICE issue. - Alison ☺ 07:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I have sought clarification of the legal position from the foundation (no doubt others have too). Until we hear from office, I strong oppose restoring material that seems likely to prove problematic. As to those who propose merging, remember that we have to keep the history for GDFL compliance. We can do that as a history merge and delete the present article, but all the revision contain the code at the start of them. So if we can't use the code, we can't use any revision. GDFL therefore prevents us from using the content of this article in another article. WjBscribe 07:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a valid excuse; you can simply copy-and-paste the list of authors from the history page (or from the undelete page) into the target article's talk page. There's no need to preserve the full page history. IIRC, that's how transwiki was done in the past (it might still be done that way). --cesarb 12:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. I'd like to see this merged with HD DVD. PratzStrike 07:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Let's hope that the office decides to be bold in this matter, but it is they who would have to deal with the mess if this got us in trouble, so it should be their decision. Let's also hope that WMF finds a new general counsel soon; this came at a bad time. —ptk✰fgs 07:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as there is nothing to state that this singular illegal prime is more notable than any other illegal prime in the sense of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Digg swarms over a lot of things.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment please note that this number is not prime. E.g. it's divisible by 2. --Lino Mastrodomenico 13:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How can we censor a number without knowing what it is? For example, if Wikipedia contained exactly one 128-bit number the page for which has been deleted and locked, that would give the game away regardless. If we want admins to delete the page every time it's recreated, or have RC patrolers remove the number any time someone puts it into a page, they would all have to know the number anyway. Legal issues aside, a redirect seems the logical solution. Mike1024 (t/c) 08:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted because it doesn't deserve an article of its own, whether or not is should be included in the HD DVD article I'm not sure, I wouldn't expect to see it in an encyclopedia article so I don't see the need to include it in Wikipedia as some kind of act of protest against the law. — PhilHibbs | talk 08:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, or Keep and Rename: - It has made extremely popular news headlines, and is a first amendment issues. Teque5 09:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per 17 U.S.C. 512: 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(1)(a)(iii) states that to maintain status as a "safe harbor" from DMCA claims, Wikipedia must make efforts to delete material as soon as we become aware that there may be an infringement. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is NOT a DMCA issue. A number cannot be under copyrighted domain. Teque5 09:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The distribution of "circumvention devices" is indeed a DMCA issue. I don't know whether the courts would call this a circumvention device, but it's hardly unimaginable. —ptk✰fgs 09:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • JFYI: 512 only applies to copyright infringement, not circumvention devices; there are no safe harbour provisions for the latter at all. -- Schneelocke 09:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Universal_v._Reimerdes tells me that the DMCA is interpreted liberally. The definition of the key as infringing material or a circumvention device is not for us to debate here: regardless, per the safe harbor clause, we have to interpret it as a potential infringment and remove it as soon as we have knowledge. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 09:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the key is a circumvention device, the safe harbor clause does not apply. Ken Arromdee 13:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • IANAL, but 17 USC 512 is not a case mentioned in WP:CSD. --Goobergunch|? 10:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this has been around since February...why is it only a problem now? --CCFreak2K 09:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted' - I don't think this one's encyclopaedic enough yet to deserve an entry of its own. On the other hand, I've also got to say the DMCA is not a reason to speedy delete anything - whether something should be deleted for legal/liability reasons is something that only the Wikimedia Foundation can (and should) decide, and if they decide it is, it should be deleted as an Office Action. Community deletes should always go through the regular deletion process unless one of the speedy criteria applies, and that's not the case here, so the speedy deletion was inappropriate. That being said, I still think that the deletion of the article *as such* was OK. -- Schneelocke 09:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, not only is it legally problematic, there is absolutely no encyclopaedic purpose to this. Wikipedia is not the place for Diggers to promote their l33t crack. As a redirect it has no value (you would not search for an answer, if you know the key you'd have no need to search) and the number itself is legally problematic and in any case violates WP:NOT#info. We seem to have spent much of the last 24 hours removing this shit form articles on everything from DVD to Scottish Parliament Building. Enough already. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you know the key you'd have no need to search to find out what the number is, but you would still have reason to "search for an answer", because the article about the number would contain more content than just the number itself.
Moreover, your link to WP:NOT#info doesn't work, and if you had intended WP:NOT#IINFO, you are misusing it; unless your item is one of the ones explicitly listed (and it's not) using it properly requires giving a specific reason why a type of entry is not encyclopediac, not just saying "this is indiscriminate information" and removing it. WP:NOT#IINFO is not a roundabout way to invoke WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ken Arromdee 13:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to [[HD DVD] (where HDDVD redirects) per others above. Thryduulf 10:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and refer to AFD This should never have been speedily deleted. --Apyule 11:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - this page in no way fulfilled any criteria for SD. In addition, there must surely be some mistake because all the links above go to the wrong article - there is an F missing from the start of what should be the second pair of hex digits. CiaranG 12:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - The number itself has become a source of viral internet media. Even sites that are primarily non-technical like icanhascheezburger.com and ytmnd.com are displaying media with the number. Also I do not see how a company can legally claim DMCA Violation on a number. BinaryCleric 12:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and cease this mindless censoring of current event which has become a phenomenon. The legal argument is moot since the key is already on a protected Illegal_prime#HD-DVD_Key page, although in base-10 to get around the blacklisting. And when it comes to notability the story is now on the front page of BBC technology news website. --Miikka Raninen 12:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - it was created as a violation of WP:POINT, to get around its removal from Digg. Wikipedia is not a repository of cracks and passwords - and especially not for MAKING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE UNDER THE GFDL, which is what we were effectively doing. DS 13:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm... well, since now we're getting into copyright, I believe that such a number is ineligible for copyright, and in GFDL terms is freely distributable. However, that's a different than its legality, which is being actively disputed. Could you quote a section from the GFDL to support that? GracenotesT § 13:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put disclaimer at top As a UK user, there is no reason I shouldn't be able to read this. Put a disclaimer at the top of the page along the lines of Forbidden to view for US readers. 131.111.8.103 13:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only thing is, our servers are in Florida, and must obey US law. Nonetheless, I disupte that regarding this number encyclopedically is technically contrary to the law. GracenotesT § 13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_2&oldid=1140259633"