Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPv6 leet speak

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 BALEEETED!!. - Mailer Diablo 02:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPv6 leet speak

This page looks made up and fails the search engine test. Earle Martin [^t/_c] 00:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I say speedy delete as patent nonsense. If it's not patent nonsense, I think it's close enough to just kill it now anyway. It's obviously not as if this article has any chance of being kept. -- Kicking222 00:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet patent nonsense, but it does fail WP:NOT as something made up in school one day. Aplomado ^talk 01:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, first edit summary: "A trend is born?" WP:NFT as per Aplomado. -- H·G (^words/_works) 01:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, "leet" IPv6 masks are not uncommon and are not something that have been simply made up. I've run across quite a few of them and I think that as IPv6 proliferates it will increase. http://spamcalc.net/faq.php specifically discusses the product's effect on IPv6 "Spam". This will only become more notable in coming years —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trelane (talk • contribs) 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'll accept that this may not fall under WP:NFT. Still, its notability is far from established here--no sources, very few unique Ghits for 'ipv6 "leet speak" -wiki' or 'ipv6 "leetspeak" -wiki,' not even a mention in leet. Speaking of leet, this might be a good destination for a merge if notability can't be fully established but verifiable info can be found for this subject. But at the moment, the comment that "this will only become more notable in coming years" falls under crystal-ballism. -- H·G (^words/_works) 02:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Del33t Wikipedia is not for something that's gonna be cool someday. --Xrblsnggt 04:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• The article describes a "new linguistic play on trends" and cites zero sources. That, in conjunction with the edit summary just mentioned, indicate that this is a mis-use of Wikipedia to publish primary source and secondary source documentation of something that has never before been documented. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for publicizing new ideas, nor a publisher of first instance. The aforementioned FAQ provides one sentence of information, and there are no other sources to be found. That is not enough source material to write a decent stub, let alone a complete encyclopaedia article. The route to having an encyclopaedia article is to have this "new trend" documented in a computer journal, a magazine feature article, or a book first. Then it becomes a legitimate topic for a tertiary source such as an encyclopaedia. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 13:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of respect for No original research - and no verifiable sources. I work in IT, and it doesn't seem verifiable to me. --TheM62Manchester 13:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• beef:beef:beef:beef:beef:beef:beef:beef Huh? er... I mean, Delete. Certainly not currently popular enough to warrant an article, and this article also doesn't explain it very well. If this ever actually becomes a well-known variety of l33t, then maybe it could have a place on that page, but it doesn't seem like it now. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment the page is a misnomer, however, putting words in IPv6 addresses does happen. such as "dead:beaf" Spearhead 22:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as something made up one day. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:05, 6 August 2006 (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.