Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illegal number (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. The original close by Yandman (see below) was overturned by the discussion at Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_3.--Aervanath (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The result was   redirect to AACS encryption key controversy. I know AfD closures that do not follow head count are often controversial, but I see no clear refutation of the nominator's arguments for deletion. CS has received flak for providing a long deletion rationale, and several editors have provided this as their only argument. The fact that someone takes the time to be clear, precise and pre-empt several possible arguments against deletion is hardly something to be criticised. In the same vein, the fact that the topic is interesting does not make the article worthy of inclusion. I think redirect is preferable to deletion, because it's a plausible search term, and in this way if there is any content of use here, it can be merged into other articles. If you feel I've chosen the wrong target for redirection, feel free to modify it (DeCSS? DMCA?). yandman 15:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Illegal number
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There was something of a small frenzy among some geeky circles the first time this article was nominated for deletion. But the problems remain, and as far as I can tell, I successfully refuted every single argument for keeping the article on the talk page. Let me summarize my talk page comments as best I can. I apologize for the length, but I think it necessary because of the huge amount of confusion over the topic which has obfuscated the policy arguments. For convenience, I have divided it up into several sections.

Original research and bad sourcing :The key policy here is original research. The definition of an illegal number is "An illegal number is a number that represents information which is illegal to possess, utter or propagate." This sounds like a neat idea for a discussion over coffee or tea. But how do we know it isn't something made up in school one day? Ah, because of the three sources given! We have some brief comments in the prime glossary and a Register article, and some speculation on Phil Carmobdy's website. Do these satisfy the Wikipedia policies on original research and reliable sources. I think not. These are not very good sources.

Misrepresentation of source material: The Register article was inspired by the AACS legal notice, which makes up a good chunk of the illegal number article. But the notice does not say what the current version of the article says, do they claim to own a number. The quote from the letter in the footnote, is "Illegal Offering of Processing Key to Circumvent AACS Copyright Protection [...] are thereby providing and offering to the public a technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed, produced, or marketed for the purpose of circumventing the technological protection measures afforded by AACS (hereafter, the "circumvention offering"). Doing so constitutes a violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA")”. (My emphasis)

It says that distributing "technology, product, etc." for "the purpose of circumventing the..." is illegal. In other words, if you distribute this key for a specific purpose of circumventing the AACS technology, that is illegal.

In the AFD, somebody commented, "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."

Or to make the example even simpler, your street address is not illegal for me to possess, but on Wikipedia at least, it can be a banning offense for me to reveal your address, as it is a secret (presumably, assume so for the sake of argument) that you live there. The consequences are more dire, depending on my apparent intent for revealing such information. The law makes all kinds of distinction about intent and purpose for lots of crimes. Why is it so hard for people to understand that distributing particular information with a particular intent may be illegal even if that information is not illegal to possess? Now of course, some people are affronted that such things can be illegal. But the point isn't that some number is illegal; it's that a particular secret is protected, and revealing that secret is in fact, under the DMCA, illegal. This is nothing new.

It's clear (to me at least) that the speculation around this issue is extremely misguided. There is a real issue: should revealing secrets designed to stop people from circumventing copyright protection be illegal? But it has little to do with people "owning" numbers. You can bet if there really was such a claim of ownership the EFF would have made a stink about it. But the only stink they've raised is about the real issue, as I've explained.

Lack of sourcing and media coverage: Is this speculation about illegal number notable? I don't think so. If it were (almost by definition), there would be a number of sources like well-respected newspapers and such reporting on this speculation. So far, they have chosen to avoid commenting.

Digression -- is patentability of numbers relevant?: In closing, let me comment on the patentability of numbers. This has been raised as a red herring in discussion, because someone believed that regardless of the merits of claims of patenting numbers, there was enough media coverage of "patenting a number" that it satisfied policy.

It's not relevant either that speculation or ideas of patenting numbers can be much better sourced than the so-called "illegal numbers". If you look at the [source we discussed on talk page], it is perfectly ok to write a book on what number was patented. The reason is that the number is not secret. You are free to go look at the patent application online, and then go tell people, in public forums if you wish, about the information contained in it. This seems entirely different than what this article is purporting to be about, speculation about numbers being illegal because they represent secret information. In other words, we have two different topics here, so whether one can be reliably sourced is irrelevant to whether the other one is. Unless you want to change the article to say that "an illegal number is a number that that under some interpretations and under some legislation represents information which is illegal to possess, utter or propagate, under other interpretations it represents a patented number, which is not illegal to possess, utter or propagate." But that doesn't make any sense, does it? --C S (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep There is clearly a notable topic here - I had no difficulty finding additional sources in journals such as New Statesman and Information Week. There may well be some issues of scope for the article but these should be settled elsewhere.  The length of the nomination and the reference to the article's talk page indicates that this is forum shopping. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could list some of these numerous articles, and the best ones to make your case. I did find a brief article by Becky Hogge in the New Statesmen about the AACS incident.  It hardly supports the definition of illegal number.  It not only doesn't define illegal number (although it says the number in question is such an example), I don't think it justifies this article's existence.  No doubt, the AACS incident may be worth an article (or perhaps a section in a lengthier article about the DMCA).  But most of the illegal number article is clearly OR.  Perhaps Colonel Warden could help out here by stripping all poorly sourced material, or material not supported by the sources he found, such as the given OR definition of illegal number.  I'm afraid were I to do so, someone may accuse me of stuff [incidentally, since I seem to be accused of stuff here, I should point out I spent very little time on the 1st AFD, and while I did engage for a few days on the talk page some time ago (maybe 2 years?), today was I reminded of it, and then I saw it was still there.  Given that all the arguments on the talk page seem to have been refuted, I thought there would be no problem with a nomination.  If the Colonel is correct and I have violated some behavioral guideline here, I would be happy to withdraw my nefarious nomination.]  --C S (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that you agree that the AACS incident merits an article. This appears to be that article.  It may well be imperfect but that's not a reason to delete.  Please see WP:BEFORE which explains that alternatives to deletion should be explored before coming here.  Colonel Warden (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This appears to be nothing like that article. It's filled to the brim with OR. --C S (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking further, I find that the matter is covered better at AACS encryption key controversy. A merge proposal would be a more sensible process than this. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And what is there to merge? The OR theory on illegal numbers?  The wrong factual statements about what the AACS controversy was about?  At best, what we could do is just kill everything and redirect the article.  But that may lead people to think that there actually is a notable topic of "illegal number".


 * Incidentally, you haven't responded to my comments about lack of sourcing, despite claiming their prevalence. Perhaps that was due to your initial misconception about the scope of this article.  --C S (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, This is certainly a notable subject and it is referenced. The AACS encryption key controversy is only one example of this.Smallman12q (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit 1: I would like to point out that this is by far one of the longest nomination rationales I have seen and as Gandalf61 says below, if the rationale behind the AFD requires so much explaining, than perhaps its not a very solid reason.Smallman12q (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to hear some, if there are any - it might sway my vote. Artw (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination is WP:TLDR. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for same reasons others mentioned.  D r e a m Focus  04:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment for those who haven't read the nomination: the nominator's suggestion (essentially) is that the subject of this article is a legal theory concocted by people with no formal legal training and published in sources that aren't reliable sources for legal issues (e.g., The Register, which is a reliable source on IT-related issues, e.g. product announcements, stuff like that, but shouldn't be considered a reliable source for this kind of legal speculation). There is therefore no evidence that it has any legal validity.  JulesH (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. A rather bizarre theory, not backed up by any actual legal evidence, but reported in enough different places to establish notability (IMO) as an important part of crypto-geek-legal folklore. That said, there is a significant chunk of OR going down here, and he article has NPOV issues (reporting the numbers as illegal despite the fact that no source that would be reliable for that assertion has made it) that need fixing.  I think it can be fixed, but it needs serious work. JulesH (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comments except the "reported in enough different places". We need to have good reporting, especially if we want to make that the basis of an article which has no basis in reality.  At least we should ensure that the speculation is notable enough.  Where is this notable speculation?  Slashdot?  Blogs?  The Register?  The best source anyone has found is .  Frankly, articles written that sloppily don't engender much confidence (and it's written vaguely enough that it's hard to pin down if the journalist is really thinking that the AACS notice is claiming the number itself is illegal).  I guess my perspective on this is rather simple: why is this speculation not mentioned in periodicals like the New York Times but picked up in rather short "sci/tech" segments in the New Statesmen?  Is it because newspapers like the former have a higher editorial standard for speculation with no apparent legal basis?  If so, should we be including this into Wikipedia?  --C S (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * comment how is this not just a WP:COATRACK for DeCSS related material? Are there good reasons for not mergering/redirecting? Artw (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The same could probably be said of Illegal prime. Artw (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article itself explains that any information can be expressed by a number, so an "illegal number" is simply a synonym of "illegal information". This is just a piece of original research by synthesis claiming that a few sensationalist reports from sources that cannot be considered reliable for legal matters mean that there is a concept of an "illegal number". By keeping this article we are simply perpetuating an urban myth as though it were fact. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I entirely agree with Phil's comments about this issue. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This article synthesizes a subject from sources that, with one exception, are not relevant. Redirection to DMCA is an option, regardless of whether the article is deleted. WillOakland (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep notable, well written, sourced. And if arguments for deletion are so complex that it takes an essay to explain them then they can't be very sound. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably keep votes that are so short they don't even bother to back up claims of being "notable" and (reliably) "sourced" aren't very sound either. My "essay" is due to the fact that some people seem to have blinders on and make claims of "notable" and "sourced" without attempting to back them up.  In their minds, this is so obvious as to not warrant any further discussion.  But I believe this is due to various misconceptions which I outlined.  --C S (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As you might know, AFDs are not votes where you can win just by posting enough bold assertions of merit or "notability." Reasoning and evidence (at least in theory) count for something. WillOakland (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Neither are AFDs a soapbox where rambling speeches and empty rhetoric can disguise the lack of a good argument. Conciseness is a virtue. Gandalf61 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And I really hope to see the evidence soon for your claims. All I can rely on due to my lack of a good argument are rambling speeches and rhetoric about reliable sources and notability.  --C S (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NOR. The underlying issue of the encryption key has a separate article, but this article has no reliable sources.  It may be possible that it is illegal for certain types of information to be published, such as a number together with the instructions for using it in an illegal manner, but that is a different idea than a number that is illegal in itself; and, if that idea were presented in an article it would require clear reliable sources in the field of law. This article is not that. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:COATRACK for opinions on DeCSS and AACS encryption key controversy. Could possibly merged or redirected to one of those two. Artw (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I agree with Gandalf61 above. The arguments for deletion are very complex. If it takes an essay to explain them then they can't be very sound. The article needs improvement for sure but there's no reason to delete it. Vexorg (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A well-referenced article that needs improvement rather than deletion. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Illegal prime It's definitely a notable topic, however perhaps it needs to be more restructured towards just alternative representations of illegal information. It seems to be deliberately ignoring the useful aspects, such as illegal primes, to avoid an overlap with that article, which makes this article not as useful or complete. Kaldosh (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And...this is the kind of confusion that necessitated my long nomination. Illegal prime is even worse than the illegal number article.  That one relies on a single Register article, with all other sources being non-RS type blogs/webpages.  There is no legal justification for considering the "illegal" primes to in fact be illegal, and neither was the speculation about such widespread enough to make it into more than one dubious piece of journalism in the Register.  --C S (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Illegal prime is different from illegal number because not every illegal number is a prime. However, there is enough controversy around illegal primes alone(because of their unique mathematical properties) to warrant a separate article.Smallman12q (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's well-sourced.  The arguments to delete do not convince me.  If a "coatrack" is suspected, then a merge would be more appropriate in this case. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We have finitely many sources (in fact, only four to discuss, one of which was found by an earlier commenter in the discussion). Only 3 are in the article, and the best one is the Register article, which, if you know anything about the Register, doesn't really engender much confidence, especially for any argument arguing that the topic has received notable media coverage.  Please explain why this suffices to make this notable speculation or a legitimate topic.  At the risk of beating a dead horse, merely stating something is well-sourced, when someone has pointed out the contrary, is hardly an argument.
 * It'd be great if there were actually a discussion about these sources, but not a single person has joined in such a discussion nor explained why these particular sources show notability or why they satisfy WP:RS for this topic. --C S (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. What an interesting topic.  The subject is encyclopedic.  — Reinyday, 07:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.