Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD DVD Night

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect and merge to HD DVD encryption key controversy. -- nae'blis 13:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HD DVD Night[edit]

HD DVD Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Does not meet notability requirement. Juansmith 20:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The subject matter for this article has come up in major news media outlets and the continuing nature of the development means that there will likely be more attention given to it over the next few days. --Darkstar949 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is a notable event for the internet community and it involved at least tens of thousands of people. But we might talk about moving the article to another title, though we don't know yet how the history will refer the event. -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Currently front page on Slashdot and Drudge Report. Definitely becoming notable, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into HD DVD encryption key controversy. There's no need for a separate article just for Digg. Pizzachicken 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but maybe move to a more suitable title. The subject IMO is certainly notable. ugen64 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with HD DVD encryption key controversy. —tregoweth (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (probably rename). This is a notable news story. More links: New York Times Associated Press-The Cunctator 20:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the encyclopaedia. The newspaper is over there. Wikipedia articles are encyclopaedia articles, not news stories. Arguing that the article should be kept on the basis that it is a news story is counter to our fundamental policy that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh. I never knew what Wikipedia was. Thanks for the heads up. I do think the entry needs a new name, though. --The Cunctator 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with HD DVD encryption key controversy. The article does not seem to have enough information to be a stand-alone article. Bballoakie 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying that merging would be wrong, but the question isn't whether it has enough information as yet to be a stand-alone article, but whether the topic *could*. --The Cunctator 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important issue that effected many people recently. Certainly notable for any user of a user generated content site, as it deals with the issues of user censorship, and is documenting an interesting & unique online event. I don’t think it should be merged with any HD DVD or Digg article, as I feel it deals more with issues of censorship online than any one site or HD DVD. -HalHal 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. this is only an important issue to digg. yes, it effected 1000's of people. no, it's not notable. i've seen digg go down for maintenance lots of times. that effects 1000's of people, too, but you don't see new articles being made every time that happens. and yes, it got lots of press. so did barry bonds 714th home run and that article got nominated for deletion. this, at most, deserves mentioning on the digg.com article. having an entire wikipedia article on it is vanity, plain and simple. and diggcruft. Misterdiscreet 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i think this is an important event of the internet. sure only 1000's had anything to do with it. but i think what happened sets a precident for the future of social networking sites, and that maybe this does have some greater signifigance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.49.129 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep The event is clearly being picked up by major news companies. Also, this AfD seems to be a bit premature, since this is a growing news story that will only become more significant in the coming days, as more news companies pick up the news bulletin. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. The newspaper, which deals in individual stories like this, is over there. The event as far as an encyclopaedia is concerned is the HD DVD encryption key controversy, which can break out sub-articles, summary style if, indeed, enough verifiable information becomes available to warrant doing so. But that hasn't actually happened yet. Uncle G 22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as a notable current event with multiple non-trivial sources. Salad Days 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Which source is the one that calls it "HD DVD Night"? There isn't a single source cited in the article that does. Uncle G 22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge anything not already there into HD DVD encryption key controversy. Title is neologistic, and terms such as "civil disobedience" and the claim that the night "ended" as Digg decided to stop fighting the key's introduction are POV and OR. We don't need two articles on the same thing. -Wooty Woot? contribs 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a straightforward example of civil disobedience. What's wrong with that? --The Cunctator 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Relevant content is already on HD DVD encryption key controversy, and the title (and thus premise of the article) seems both parochial and unsourced. Tompagenet 22:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article and the controversy surrounding the key is an important topic. Xanucia 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment refactored to eliminate attempt to mis-use this very discussion as a soapbox to propagate something that the editor wishes to propagate. Uncle G 01:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant stuff and delete. Information on Digg and the main controversy article is sufficient- a standalone article is magnifying importance. Lots of Diggers have Wikipedia accounts apparently. --Wafulz 22:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This is a very large ethical issue... "Can we prevent Internet Riots when it happens". It is extremely vital and important that this issue is documented in its own article.  Dooga  Talk 22:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, this isn't a news website. You can head over to Wikinews if you want to though. --Wafulz 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge This story has reached a number of widespread news outlets (like BBC news website) and so it's notable right this second. However, this isn't a major breaking news story, it will fade into media insignificance within hours, and is much more suitable in HD DVD encryption key controversy. Merge any extra info into the Digg.com topic in that article. In my opinion, talk of the significance of an "internet revolution" is subjective and media hype. Besides, should it become significant, "Internet revolts" can become its own article. Mentality 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, gorramit! (Or, failing that, Keep/Merge.) It's all over the Intertubes, guys - and I don't just mean blogs here, I mean stuff like the New York Times, CNet, and BetaNews. It's certainly more notable than, say, Series of tubes, especially as it's part of an ongoing copyright controversy, whereas "Series of tubes" is merely highlighting a particular Congresscritter's cluelessness. --Special Operative MACAVITYDebrief me 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) (Modified 23:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC) --Special Operative MACAVITYDebrief me 23:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete and merge any relevant information to HD DVD encryption key controversy. No source refers to this incident as "HD-DVD night" except a non-notable blog, and any new information relating to about the event can be merged to HD DVD encryption key controversy. This topic also already has a dedicated section on the Digg page. Fopkins | Talk 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I agree that the title for the article isn't the best, but may I suggest the Digg Riot name that has been being used by the media? There is a good chance that once all of the dust settles the article will be a bit too long to be included on the Digg page or just outside the relevance for the HD DVD encryption key controversy article.--Darkstar949 23:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • creating a new article can be considered if and when the article that this is merged with (assuming it's merged) gets to large. right now, however, it's premature Misterdiscreet 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I have been doing some work on expanding the article already and there are quite a few articles poping up on the internet that are talking about the events in the context of more than just HD DVD controversy including legal ramifications of user driven websites and consumer protest to DRM as a whole. Both of the these subjects would not fit in the HD DVD encryption key controversy article. --Darkstar949 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Merge with HD DVD encryption key controversy as "HD-DVD Night" is a rather informal title. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content into HD DVD encryption key controversy and Digg, as appropriate. *** Crotalus *** 00:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, change title, otherwise merge per above. —Dark•Shikari[T] 00:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the better sourced HD DVD encryption key controversy, this one is lacking and overlaps with it. Idioma 00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - Whatever. This should (and is adequately) covered in HD DVD encryption key controversy. This extra article does absolutely nothing but dilute the information over two pages. I know the Digg fetishists want to scream censorship whilst getting back to their usual pattern of digging erroneous computer game news, but you've already got the original article to write about it. You don't need two. Oh, and the main article should flat out mention the now revoked key. - hahnchen 00:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with HD DVD encryption key controversy as per many people above. If that article becomes too long we can consider at that time whether to spin this content out as a separate article. Hopefully by then a better name for the event will have emerged. Thryduulf 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the event has already been chronicled in the Digg and HD DVD controversy articles. Unlike some huge civil right protests, this will be largely forgotten by next week or so. If history does prove me wrong then some day the event will be given a name and a historical context. Right now, of all the sources mentioned, one of the least authoritative mentions the title "HD DVD Night" and gives it no attribution at all.[1]. Mitaphane ?|! 01:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything new with HD DVD encryption key controversy and/or Digg. This isn't really very notable as an independent event (rather, it's important within those two areas) and "HD DVD Night" is indeed a rather cryptic title (it sounds like an evening when you get together to watch HD DVDs). Neither of those articles are very long, and this one under consideration isn't either; there shouldn't be a pre-emptive decision to spin it out. Just because something happened doesn't mean it automatically deserves its very own article. -- Mithent 01:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP -- this has made CNN.com/tech as the top headline in tech news. See http://www.cnn.com/TECH/ I think this rebelion deserves an article Mineralè 01:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite the article where a "HD DVD Night" is the headline. The subject of the article (currently) on the page that you actually linked to is Digg, and you'll find a similar encyclopaedia discussion appropriately placed in Digg. Uncle G 01:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Articles can be renamed, as such the title of the article should not be a major point of debate. --Darkstar949 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps rename i was very tempted to vote merge with the controversy article, but I feel this has outgrown the HD DVD controversy as such. It's a civil riot against the DMCA and the effects of it on companies like digg. It surely was notable, it was without a doubt one of the biggest interweb events in years. Whereever you went on the internet, you'd ran into people talking about this. The BBC, CNN, Forbes and other large media companies even addressed it within hours (which is a first for such an event as far as I'm aware). The title might be wrong, so a rename would be with my support most likely. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename or Merge As others stated this is an important issue regarding freedom of speech and the internet and this night will be probably remembered for quite some time. The information should most definently be kept but possibly merged into another article. If it is kept it should be renamed to a more fitting name describing the event. Ergzay 02:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am baffled that the only explanation you have to offer for this AfD nomination is that it Does not meet notability requirement. In accordinance with my inclusionist philosophy (disk space is expendable), I vote to keep. I surmise that this event may become worthy of mention when examining the history of Intellectual Property rights (i.e. Business Law college textbooks will likely mention it), but if not, then go ahead and re-nominate this for deletion in three months time. --Ted 02:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG MERGE This has to be a section of the HD DVD encryption key controversy. This is not a distinct, notable event, but rather part of an ongoing controversy around the key. It is too short to stand on its own, and the sources get repetive quickly. Keeping this page as it is rather than merging with HD DVD encryption key controversy makes for two mediocre article on more or less the same issue, whereas merging brings one very strong an informative article.--Cerejota 02:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge This is already duplicated in like 4 different articles. I don't see any references that actually say "HD DVD Night" as the title. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone removed the reference, it is back now. HalHal 02:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with HD DVD encryption key controversy. Never heard of the term HD DVD Night. — JeremyTalk 02:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the HD DVD encryption key controversy. When that article becomes full, its contributors can look again at setting up subarticles but that stage has not yet arrived. Capitalistroadster 02:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Clearly passes notability requirements due to the number of secondary sources that have written on this event. GarryKosmos 03:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, this event is truly notable, and should not be deleted. Carlosguitar 03:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge: Completely non-notable, no source refers to the event by the article's title. east.718 03:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; merge proposal to be discussed on talk. John Vandenberg 03:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What convinces me to vote keep on this article is the number of sources and links that deal not with the whole encryption key thing in general but with its effect on Digg as a website and as a community. It would be speculative and an inappropriate voting justification to say that this incident may be studied in the future vis a vis Internet community and social relationships, with the whole encryption key thing a minor detail, so I'm not going to base my vote on this specuation. I'm just saying is all. Maxamegalon2000 04:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a page for that: Digg. Are we goign to continue adding pointless pages that belong in others?--Cerejota 04:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The events of the night appear to be more notable than most other events in the Digg world. Digg is a big enough subject to warrant multiple articles when it is the subject of controversies (in the same vein as Wikipedia and Slashdot having more than article). John Vandenberg 05:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename or Merge As numerous others have pointed out, this article clearly meets the criteria for notability. Whether it should remain an separate article or not remains to be seen. It seems to me that what happened at Digg is a watershed moment for online communities that involves issues that are not (and should not be) addressed in HD DVD encryption key controversy. That article primarily addresses the widespread distribution of the HD DVD encryption key (across the whole internet, not just Digg). What happened specifically at Digg, however, also has great bearing on the future of online communities in general, separate from the issue of DRM. I think that currently this article should stand on its own (although it needs editing and probably a name change), at least for now. If this all turns out to be a tempest in a teapot and has no lasting effects, then the relevant parts of the article should be merged as above, and the rest deleted. Morgan May 04:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above --Cerejota 04:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't see why two articles are necessary here. It's certainly a notable event, but forms a part of a large controversy and as such, deserves a section of the article dicussing the controversy. Whilst some have proposed that this specific event may have long-term ramifications, that remains to be seen and of course editors reserve the right to restore this article should that happen. But it hasn't and no-one refers to this controversy by this name anyway. Newartriot 04:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to HD DVD encryption key controversy. I think the term "HD DVD Night" is completely stupid, but it seems people are referring to it as such. JuJube 04:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirct to HD DVD encryption key controversy. This won't stand the test of time. Tyro 06:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge --58.179.236.168 06:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and welcome to the Encyclopedia of Internet Events. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 06:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content into HD DVD encryption key controversy and Digg --Rodzilla (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge Easily meets notability requirement - see front-page coverage on major Australian newspaper The Age [2]. Whether it should be merged or kept I have no opinion on. -Xiroth 11:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge This should not be deleted. Fuutott 11:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into HD DVD encryption key controversy as above. On a side note, I agree with JuJube: the title "HD DVD Night" is stupid. Wikipedia should not be coining phrases. —Ben FrantzDale 11:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see a lot of merge votes here, and I understand from a wikipedia management type of view. However if you look deeply at this issue, you will see that HDDVD encryption and digg were just tools in this event. As an event it stood out on it's own with a lot of people no longer caring about digg.com or the fact that apparently they could use the key to watch HDDVDs. The fact that this is described in many popular reliable sources as a "web revolt" clarifies this point of view even more. This was not just about digg or HD-DVD, it's notable as the largest Streisand effect-case on the internet so far. There are merits for this as a "social event" and as a "history of intellectual property" type of event. I just felt the need to further clarify my earlier Keep vote.--TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OR. Just because it's the largest you've seen doesn't mean it's the largest overall. Misterdiscreet 12:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about this in the context is the Streisand effect is not what I was referring to - what I was referring to is the claim that it's the largest example of the Streisand effect, and that's not a claim the article you just cited makes. Find an article that does make that claim, from a reputable news source, and I'll happily retract my refutation of TheDJ's point. Misterdiscreet 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep for now. --SkyWalker 12:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least merge. Tragic romance 13:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but keep the image. Fin©™ 13:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant stuff into Digg and HD DVD encyrption key controversy Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 13:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with HD DVD encryption key controversy. This was a tough one, but I definitely think it's a notable event. However, it's really just a part of the whole picture, so it should end up in that article. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (in one form or another). Important net history and on many news sites. --x1987x(talk) 14:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has been featured by several major newspapers and websites. No good reason to delete has been stated. Another option is to merge into HD DVD encryption key controversy. --Jannex 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep. Clearly notable and well sourced. The question of whether or not to merge belongs on the talk page of the article.--agr 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is should very definitely be merged with HD DVD encryption key controversy and I would note that few of the keep !voters express any reason not to merge the two. The event itself is certainly notable, but doesn't deserve two articles that overlap so greatly. A discussion about merging the two can be found on the HD DVD encryption key controversy talk page for those interested. Will (aka Wimt) 17:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It's the same stupid crap in a thousand places. Put them together and you have a decent article: HD DVD encryption key controversy. --Ali'i 17:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly meets nobility standards now that NY Times, CNet, Wired and tons of other source have weighted in on the issue. MrMacMan Talk 17:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the issue of the HD DVD encryption key controversy, or of the "HD DVD Night"? --Ali'i 18:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Wired article is focused on the events of Digg, including legal opinions that they wont find safe harbour, and indicating the liability is to the tune of US$2.68 m or $US1.3 b if it is found that "Digg allowed the posts for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain". i.e. the Digg is the new 2600, only this time the takedown notice preceeds the event by a month. John Vandenberg 20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This may well be true that a lot of the coverage revolves around Digg. That does not mean that we cannot merge this with HD DVD encryption key controversy though. Considering how short this article at the moment is, there is no risk of the merger producing something excessively long. Furthermore, the Digg incident only makes sense in the context of the wider controversy so it makes sense to be a subsection of that article. Furthermore, as has been pointed out on the talk page, the name "HD DVD Night" seems to be a neologism and these should be avoided (see that there are no Google news reports calling it that). So basically, whilst I agree that this whole thing is notable and we should describe what happened at Digg, this would be much better incorporated into the other article so we would have one complete article rather than two short, incomplete and heavily overlapping ones. Will (aka Wimt) 21:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - Actually this would go better with the Digg aritcle - consider the following: most of the action was foucsed on the Digg website, there may be major legal ramifications for Digg, and one of the major triggers was the censorship of posts by Digg administrators. As such the bulk of the article should be merged with Digg with the HD DVD encryption key controversy getting a minor section commenting on it. --Darkstar949 21:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Agreed - such information about Digg and potential consequences would be better merged into the Digg article, with a link to HD DVD encryption key controversy for the context of the situation. I still see no need for this HD DVD Night article though. Will (aka Wimt) 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an important point in history for DRM, Digg, HD-DVD, and censorship. Ihatecrayons 21:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Highly notable event in Internet history. Duffy1990 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Wimt, above.--Planetary 04:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SeeZero oop I meant OhNine NoNoNo - it's like a credit card number. You would not like it if someone published your credit card number. This is Hollywood's credit card number. Everybody other than Wikipedia is publishing oop oop oop - almost slipped up there. Only you guys are good, decent, responsible considerate people. The rest of us are, well...not. 207.229.151.91 09:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious merge. It clearly now meets notability requirements, but the article about this exists - David Gerard 13:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename or merge - easily notable and verifiable. --WikiSlasher 13:35, 4 May 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HD_DVD_Night&oldid=1220777160"