Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encrypted Title Key

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. Stifle (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encrypted Title Key (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I couldn't find any independent sources to confirm notability, and in any case, we are an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. WP:NOT A MANUAL. This goes to wikiHow. K50 Dude ROCKS! 04:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not seeing a case for deletion. If it's wikiHow material, it should be transwikified, otherwise a reduced amount of rewritten material can be merged with an article about encryption.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Advanced Access Content System. You have an encrypted title key on every single DVD and Blu-Ray disk you own, so it is certainly notable. However, as it is simply a functional component of AACS it doesn't need its own article. —Noah 06:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Detailed articles on the workings of common consumer electronics seem like a reasonable topic to me, and this one particularly as it is notable for being a technology hackers are currently attempting to break (as doing so would enable Blu-Ray discs to be decrypted, thus allowing the implementation of open source software players). See BackupHDDVD, a piece of software that requires such keys as an input. JulesH (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep informative article. I dont like the deletion argument above we are an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual - this calls for a fix, not a delete. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you adduce reliable sources demonstrating notability in order to effect this fix, keeping in mind WP:NOTMANUAL? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm guessing that about a third to half of these would make excellent references. :-) (seriously). —Noah 05:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be more helpful, here are three from the AACS article and a couple new ones: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The subject matter is notable and referencable. It is really only a question of whether we clean up the existing article or merge it into the main AACS article. —Noah 06:06, 8 January 2009 (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.