Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPv9

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 slight merge to Internet Protocol#Version history. Sandstein (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IPv9

IPv9 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article is an interesting one. It seems it was created based on a misguided 2004 news article and has only gone downhill from there. While I'm all for cleaning up articles that deserve it, the technology this one refers to seems not only non-notable, but vaguely hoax-like (although it doesn't seem like it was intended as a hoax, its importance was, at least at first, seemingly blown out of proportion. There is a Register article that seems to confirm that opinion, as does an admittedly unsourced listhost email. It's just non-encyclopedic and non-notable in my mind. If you read the article, by the way, it feels like copyvio, but there is no source. Maybe more of an original research issue. Shorelander (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding that it seems to have been deleted twice before - PROD'd and just otherwise deleted. Also see this article. Shorelander (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment As Vint Cerf got involved, this may be considered notable hype. BUt it probably requires no more than a line in IPv6 or a similar article. (IPv8 -- another failed/fringe proposal -- was already deleted and has no article space invocations.) Maybe a "Beyond IPv6" section? --Dhartung | Talk 17:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into other related article. Notable, but probably not enough for an article of its own --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 07:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Smerge as Addhoc has indicated. This is clearly the best place for a brief mention of the topic. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge - the article as it reads sounds like it would be highly notable, however it is almost certainly bogus, and once the reality is faced the major claims of importance of this would vanish. It could be left as a redirect to the merged article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough by far for a stub, by far. And I'll bet anyone $5 or help editing up an article of your choice that the very minute IPv6 actually comes close to wide implementation, the next one (this one? who knows...) will get massive press. Lawrence § t/e 18:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that would violate WP:CRYSTAL and possibly a U.S. law or two about online gambling. Regarding the article itself: remove the questionable assertions and there wouldn't be much left. Delete - if Lawrence wins his bet, we can either create the new article from scratch or update an appropriate already-existing one. B.Wind (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - even if this is real, there is no evidence its more than just someone (or some company)'s hairbrained R&D project. How many dozens of people have done research on modifications to the TCP/IP stack? Heaps. Unless they are particularly original, or people start actually using them, then they belong in press releases or citeseer, not here. And there is no evidence this is either original or widely used, so get rid of it. --SJK (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As per SJK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2008 (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.