Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illegal number

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 keep Ryan Postlethwaite 12:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal number

[edit]
Illegal number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Original research and speculations based on recent developments (AACS encryption key controversy). No reliable sources. While the listed refs do tackle the issue, the term itself is not introduced and not discussed, making the content of the article inadmissible Original research. Not to mention that 2 of 3 refs are not reliable sources. `'mikka 16:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • P.s. Not to say it contains plain false parts. `'mikka 17:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to say "it contains plain false parts" because "it contains plain false parts" would not be a legitimate grounds for deletion. Please identify them - and by actually naming the parts in question, not just giving vague perjorative descriptions - so they can be fixed. 67.158.73.188 23:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you look into the article recently? `'mikka 00:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. 67.158.73.188 01:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good. I guess you are not familiar with wikipedia conventions, but you still may see a half-dozen tags "citation needed", which is a polite way to say "bullshit suspected". `'mikka 01:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I said, that's not grounds for deletion. If you think there are false statements in the article, deleting the article is not the correct way to solve that problem. Neither is "The subject of this article doesn't exist" acceptable grounds for deletion, which you're arguing elsewhere on this talk page. We have a page about unicorns, even though they don't exist, and we should have a page about illegal numbers, even if you think they don't exist, and even if (and I agree with your POV on this point) all right-thinking people should feel deeply offended by the very idea. 67.158.73.188 01:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am no longer playing verbal games with you. My grounds for deletion are stated in the nomination. And FUI when the number of dubious statements covers all major bases, the article is a goner. `'mikka 02:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Which two refs - would you enumerate please? Anyway, I don't think this is original research - the article seems to have been created because the AACS encryption key is not an illegal prime, so the general concept of an 'illegal number' should not be included in that article. I'd suggest merging the content of illegal prime into illegal number, then redirecting illegal prime to illegal number. WLDtalk|edits 16:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Which two refs": the blog and the single-purpose opinion-pushing site. (but again, they do not define "illegal number" ) `'mikka 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you thing it is not OR, please provide the sources that use this term. `'mikka 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Register has two articles written discussing illegal primes, where their primality is not the salient point: here:[1], and here:[2]. If you read Phil Carmody's site, [3] you'll see that primality was simply a method of making a number that encoded some allegedly illegal information notable in some other way. WLDtalk|edits 17:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This should not be a contest of "Can we find a reliable source that has used a specific phrase?"; to treat it that way is just as much faulty magical thinking as the original illegal-number situation. However, Information Week, reprinted in EETimes, has used the phrase ([4]) and they're a reliable print source. I don't know if people like Slashdot, but they've used it as well [5] The Google test is flawed, too, but the phrase "illegal number", excluding "number plate" and "number plates", gets over 63000 hits.[6] The current article is one of the top ones, but it's hard to believe that all those people are only talking about this concept because some original researcher on Wikipedia made up a neologism. As for having a "reliable definition," I defy anyone to find a reliable definition that would satisfy the standard being applied here, of a common phrase like "red wagon." Nobody reliable defines that because there are reliable definitions of "red" and "wagon" and it's normally thought acceptable and un-original to put the two words together. But under the standard being applied here, we shouldn't be allowed to talk about red wagons because to do so must be original research. 129.97.79.144 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with London Dweller. The articles could probably be merged and cleaned up, but the topic is definitely encyclopedic regardless of current events. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 16:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • YOu are not listening to me. I am not questioning whether it is encyclopedic. Regardless the merits of the topic, it is not referenced. If I start deleting unreferenced text, nothing immediately relevant will be left. `'mikka 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with major cleanup. Topic itself is notable, thuogh the refs cited are weak on WP:RS grounds (need some news or scholarly refs, not just blogs). Some of the refs in illegal prime and/or AACS encryption key controversy probably discuss the general issue, and so would be good sources for the page at hand. I agree with WLD, illegal prime is just a special case, and could be merged into here. Or else the whole Illegal number Illegal prime AACS encryption key controversy trilogy could be refactored to put the common info in illegal number. DMacks 17:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Illegal prime" is a well-referenced peculiarity. "Illegal number" is a wild unreferenced overgeneralization. Before you start "cleanup", please find me the reputable reference for the very definition. `'mikka 17:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a wild overgeneralisation - read Phil Carmody's log of creating the executable prime. Note that he spent a goes to the effort of finding a prime of 752 bytes(digits) that is a linux ELF format executable of decss - he had many candidate numbers - 32,768 of them; all of which would possess the property of being allegedly illegal. WLDtalk|edits 17:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • read my lips: "Whe-re is the re-fe-ren-ce for the term "il-le-gal num-ber?" I already wrote I have nothin against "illegal prime". `'mikka 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - needs cleanup, but still ok -Rebent 17:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep I agree with mikka, we should not be coining our own names for things. This article should only be kept only if we can find a reference that uses this term. If not then it needs to be changed or deleted to avoid original research. --Ray andrew 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for a sparkle of common sense. One correction, though: we need a reference to the definition, not to just random babble. If you read carefully the current article, it is a bunch of nonsense I don't even want to discuss here, since, if the article survives, I will delete 80% of it as an ungrounded speculation. `'mikka 18:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we accept that the idea is viable but the title is an unreferenced possible neologism, rename it to Numers that are illegal and then we only have to define the terms not the title expression...see the later examples in the Article titles policy. However, still Illegal numbers might be preferable as a compound word not a technical expression per the Naming conventions rationale. DMacks 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Numers that are illegal": sorry colleague, it is a logical and legal fallacy. Logical fallacy is you are tring to derive a good title from bad one by a grammatical trick. Legal one: these numbers are not illegal. `'mikka 00:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, so now the root of your argument is that no number is actually illegal. Thank you for finally stating that! Unfortunately, we have WP:RS references and whole reliably-sourced other pages that do seem to point to the idea of certain numbers being illegal in some respect. DMacks 00:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly redirect Illegal prime to Illegal number. The article also needs an international angle - illegal numbers outside the US. If we accept the fact that illegal prime numbers are, in fact, illegal, and that they are numbers, then we must recognise a class of illegal numbers. The article is getting more and more references. For those so inclined, I have just created redirects for Forbidden number and protected number. The former is a translation of the name of the Swedish page. And honestly, Mikkalai, stop whining at every entry that disagrees with your proposal. Try to be a bit more mature. Saying "read my lips: "Whe-re is the re-fe-ren-ce for the term "il-le-gal num-ber?"" is not academic, and does not even resemble a formal discussion.samwaltz 19:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, yeah? Respectable "academics" are just ignoring my major objection and voting "me likes it too". And you've jusr contributed more nonsense to wikipedia, thank you. No big deal. It already has quite some garbage. `'mikka 20:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems encyclopedic given the controversy, but I wonder if an illegal number would include any machine (binary) encoding of not only kiddie porn, but copyrighted material (like mp3s illegally downloaded), and images of fake IDs, and could really be unlimited, but let's see where the article grows. Carlossuarez46 20:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep topic seems worthy of inclusion. Article could do with some cleanup though, and the merge looks like a good idea. Hut 8.5 20:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but probably move the title seems a little arbitrary, if sourced, it should probably be moved to a name used in said source should one exist. I doubt anyone is going to search for(or think to link) "illegal number". i kan reed 20:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete. I understand deep phylosophical and social issues related to the controversy in question, and I was not inclined to delete the article, converting it into redirects for now, because I believe that the term eventually will go from blogosphere into mainstream, because it is very catchy. But at the moment the article does not stand a minimal ground. Not a single provided reference (including added during the votes) gives a definition of "illegal number" "Illegal prime number" was an elegant mathematical exercise. The guy didn't want to take any number (clearly, a binary executabe code, like anything in the computer is a finite string of biots, i.e., a binary number): he wanted it specifically prime. the current article is a lousy attempt to draw a generalization of the two buzz-cases without solid foundation, rewuired per wikipedia:Attribution. Mukadderat 20:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The inevitable Google gives a few hits to the incident in question, a lot of references to illegal license plates, and a bajillion pages on error messages. Mangoe 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I myself am fascinated with this idiotic idea to forbid numbers. In fact, there is a simple Theorem: All numbers are illegal. Lemma: At least one illegal number exists. Proof: it is the AACSkey. Proof of theorem ad absurdum: Suppose you say that the number X is legal. I publish the number Y=X-AACSkey on digg and tomorrow if your birthday is X, you will be in danger to be sued your ass off when you start e-mailing invitations to the party. `'mikka 00:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am concerned about the speculative nature of the article, the fact that it is undersourced, and its POV nature and lack of balance. This seems like one of those bits of net-paranoia where false rumors of government regulation spread very quickly across the internet. Allon Fambrizzi 01:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • Keep Mikka, you need to be a little more civil. Why are you trying so hard to get this deleted? Whether or not it needs more references, the reasons for deletion are notability only, and while this definately needs some cleanup, the solution is not deletion -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 03:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge to illegal prime or AACS encryption key controversy. There is very little here that is both xourced and not in one of those two articles; but I see no reason to delete. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject is notable, and the references could be multiplied added to supplemented. The only part that is in any remote sense OR is the 2nd paragraph, the one with the fact tags, and I think there would no no problem in finding citations. As with many difficult topics, the quotations from the sources speak for themselves. And, unlike perhaps some other recent news stories, this is clearly going to get more N regardless of the immediate resolution. DGG 04:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. The AACS encryption key controversy is an interesting topic, for sure. Illegal prime may seem related to it, but legally, it's not so clear they are really part of the same issue. This is a tricky one to call, but when I thought about why it was so tricky, it became clear this was actuallly OR. When somebody reads about Carmody's illegal prime and then reads about the encryption key business, it may be easy to start theorizing about illegal numbers, e.g. "wow, everything is a number...we can't copyright anything unless we copyright numbers!" But this kind of theorizing, while pleasant to do, is just OR, unless it is published in reliable sources. And any such speculation that connects "illegal" primes (which AFAIK no legal experts actually think are illegal) with a particular (allegedly) illegal number by creating terminology to connect them together, is just that – speculation, unless properly sourced. --C S (Talk) 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - interesting subject, notable, etc. Georgewilliamherbert 23:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WHO CARES IF IT'S HERE! It isn't spam, nor is it any other questionable content. HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY HURT WIKIPEDIA BY EXISTING?!?! tylermenezes 17:25, 9 May 2007 (PST)
  • Keep With some editing and expansion, this article could be better. Sseballos 00:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has undergone some important changes since I last saw it (the last version I saw was probably a few hours before my delete comment a few lines above). Based on these changes, the article should definitely be retitled as something like "illegal number speculation". In addition, the changes have only raised more concerns for me. Is this speculation noteworthy, sourced reliably? The two sources given for the definition of "illegal number speculation" are Phil Carmody's webpage and a very brief mention in a Register article. Is this really sufficient? Recall that a main function of the NOR policy is to keep unnotable internet speculation off Wikipedia. If I blog about something, Phil Carmody blogs about something, and then Slashdot mentions it, it doesn't necessarily belong on Wikipedia. How are things any better in this situation? Obviously if this speculation reaches the pages of the New York Times, it is certainly noteworthy by then...but right now it seems to be at the opposite extreme from that. --C S (Talk) 09:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's mostly WP:OR and definitely a misleading title. The number itself is not illegal, but exposing certain types of information is. To use an example, Scooter Libby was not convicted because Valerie Plame's name was illegal, but because he exposed information connecting her to the CIA. In the same way, the number isn't itself illegal (after all, it would be useless without knowledge of its purpose), but the exposed key to DRM software or some other secret information. Besides, in this day and age any piece of information can become a number, potentially making this article too vague to be useful. What good information is here should really be merged with more appropriate articles, such as Classified information, Trade secret, or AACS encryption key controversy. It might be worth considering merging Illegal number and Illegal prime into a new article, i.e. Illegal information. Sxeptomaniac 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, let's all keep WP:COOL here. I see some people getting a little hot under the collar about this whole thing. Sxeptomaniac 21:16, 10 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/Illegal_number&oldid=1079658024"