Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trusted Storage specification


 * 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   delete, with no prejudice against a redirect if suitable target is found. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Trusted Storage specification

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG - No secondaries in 9 years. . Widefox ; talk 13:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "ISO 18759" no book hits. Quick search didn't find a secondary. Seems still under development. Widefox ; talk 13:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A further search on "Trusted Storage specification" gives   page 384  but they aren't the "WORM" topic, so seems spec may be out there, but not an ISO standard yet. May be WP:TOOSOON, WP:TNT, or just needs rewrite.
 * Note: The title has been usurped with a new topic - original article was a different topic "FDE" (now this article refers to a completely different "WORM" topic), which may be notable unlike the current topic.
 * See also Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Widefox ; talk 14:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * REVIEW THE ISO PROGRAM OF WORK AND YOU WILL NOTICE THIS ARTICLE DESCRIBES THE CONCEPT OF TRUSTWORTHY WORM....PLEASE ASSIGN A MODERATOR WHO AT LEAST UNDERSTANDS WHAT ANSI AND ISO STANDARDS MEAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.105.104.178 (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * THE AUTHOR OF THIS DOCUMENT WHO IS ALSO THE ISO PROJECT EDITOR DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED DELETIONItalic text OF THIS ARTICLE.  THE ISO PROGRAM HAS BEEN TRYING TO GET THIS BASIC INFORMATION CORRECTED ON WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT SUCCESSS FOR OVER 2 YEARS.
 * CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP !!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.105.104.178 (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, for help, please see HELP. Widefox ; talk 17:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems this specification has been under development for at least nine years. This article can wait until the International Standard is published, if that ever happens. At this time, it is WP:CBALL. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope User:Jacknstock. I thought that, until I discovered that the original "FDE" topic (~10 years ago) has been overwritten by a new "WORM" topic (as yet unpublished) - I've clarified that above. Widefox ; talk 16:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It still seems to be a proposal that has not been finalized over a period of 10 years. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it is, it appears to be a press release / commercial whitepaper which turned into a section of their website? Widefox ; talk 17:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Rename to ISO 18759. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As per my nom, that's a different topic, which is even less notable. (see below). Widefox ; talk 16:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Note I've restored the original article topic about "FDE" to clarify. Please note that is a different topic (nothing to do with WORM / ISO 18759. The COI editor usurped that article to write the WORM / ISO 18759 one, instead of creating a new article. I discovered that they're two topics only after listing here, but this original topic at least has/had a draft published ref (now dead) and may be isn't salvageable. (update - it's just a press release)  Widefox ; talk 17:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Conclusion - TCG has used this article as their PR sandbox. Widefox ; talk 18:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. There's a case to made for salting the title after all the messing about, but it's probably preferable to make redirects from this title to Trusted Computing Group and from ISO 18759 to List of International Organization for Standardization standards. Would someone ask the IP to stop shouting? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, redirect to TCG and semi-protecting would be good. ISO 18759 appears to not be a standard yet, and without a single source I'd suggest leaving rather than redirecting/misdirecting. Widefox ; talk 17:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:TNT. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: A Google search on [ "Momentus" "Trusted Computing Group" ] brings up various sources that mention this. Should we consider a redirect to Opal Storage Specification? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is Opal SS the final name of this early spec? (i.e. is it a merge target) Widefox ; talk 21:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe so, but maybe I am reading it wrong.
 * "What is the Opal SSC? ... The Opal SSC specification is based on the Trusted Storage Architecture Core Specification Version 1.0 Revision 1.0"
 * Source: https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Opal_SSC_1.0_FAQ_final.pdf
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that's good enough merge target for me! (digging around for a 10 year old spec, only to find it's just a PR did a patience overflow). Widefox ; talk 21:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails GNG, borders on an A1 - not a lot there. South Nashua (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2017 (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.