482:
At best, it's an outline proposal by one person from 2017 that didn't gain any traction, and the current article implies (with no sourcing) that it's a practical protocol that could actually be implemented. The first paragraph in particular is nonsense. I've had a look through my archive of
395:. If you want the article to be kept, you need to provide sources that are (1) independent of the subject, (2) reliable, and (3) describe it at length. If it’s the best RfC ever but nobody said anything about it, it’s not notable and it does not belong to Knowledge (XXG).
483:
networking mailing lists and didn't find any serious discussion of it at all; there are a couple of puzzled mentions of the draft when it was initially published, and only a couple of "do you remember that odd proposal" passing mentions since then.
462:
that has gone nowhere. It is not something that anyone is actively working on or taking seriously or maneuvering towards adoption. There's no evidence that the proposal is notable enough for a
Knowledge (XXG) article.
204:
418:, as the article will need to frame the discussion as a failed/strawman/hoax proposal. However, there seems to be at least one 1 reliable scholarly source with sigcov of a strawman proposal
243:
The IPv10 proposal is not notable. It's severely aged, unimplemented and highly unlikely to ever be implemented. No major or minor player in the industry has even commented the proposal.
161:
499:
372:- "web content" would be dubious since at its core it is a software/protocol proposal). That being said, there are no sources, hence no notability, hence zap it.
198:
93:
108:
290:
IPv6 has serious drawbacks and is not capable of routing the available Range blocks sizes and most IP addresses are un routable/manageable.
295:
followed by a gigantic table. Because of the giant table and the fact that their edit overwrote Zac67's nomination, I reverted the edit.
249:
88:
81:
17:
255:
The current article fails to discuss the topic. It's rather a copy of various pages in WP. It's not likely to be salvageable.
102:
98:
347:
251:
445:
526:
40:
165:
368:
because it has "no credible indication of notability", but decided against it because of the topic (it’s not about a
219:
186:
134:
129:
138:
332:
The article is noteworthy as its addressing a genuine problem with IPv6 and the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses.
488:
370:
real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event
121:
522:
36:
377:
However, note that even sources that say the proposal is crap could establish notability. For instance
180:
433:
327:
Every Theory in this article is notable as it has been Cherry picked out of articles of IPv4 and IPv6.
381:
is in-depth and independent of the subject (but probably not reliable, it’s a random company’s blog).
212:
176:
425:
125:
508:
492:
472:
448:
401:
351:
301:
268:
63:
484:
343:
77:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
521:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
226:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
440:
415:
392:
246:
Most trackable discussions are about whether the proposal is technically serious or a hoax.
117:
69:
264:
365:
459:
503:
430:
428:
468:
422:
419:
427:
Here are a couple more scholarly sources, but I'm not very confident on reliability
396:
386:
339:
296:
282:
192:
155:
437:
391:
Please stop discussing the merits of the proposal, those are irrelevant. We are
260:
464:
54:
378:
322:
The article is about a notable subject hence the article is notable
247:
517:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
436:
given the strange nature of the path this topic has taken. —
432:. May be more appropriate for such an article to be at
278:
151:
147:
143:
211:
225:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
529:). No further edits should be made to this page.
498:Note: This discussion has been included in the
288:
500:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
8:
109:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
497:
421:. This one may have sigcov harder to tell
314:The article IPv10 for the follow reasons:
393:not going to evaluate those for ourselves
369:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
458:As near as I can tell, IPv10 is a
24:
424:. Here's one with just a mention
94:Introduction to deletion process
1:
460:seven year old draft proposal
235:The article IPv10 should be
84:(AfD)? Read these primers!
546:
285:left the following message
509:18:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
493:16:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
473:12:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
449:09:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
402:09:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
352:09:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
302:08:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
269:08:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
519:Please do not modify it.
239:for the follow reasons:
64:07:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
292:
166:edits since nomination
364:I considered tagging
82:Articles for deletion
511:
338:comment added by
99:Guide to deletion
89:How to contribute
537:
506:
434:History of IPv10
399:
390:
333:
328:
323:
299:
230:
229:
215:
159:
141:
79:
62:
34:
545:
544:
540:
539:
538:
536:
535:
534:
533:
527:deletion review
504:
397:
384:
331:
326:
321:
297:
172:
132:
116:
113:
76:
73:
53:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
543:
541:
532:
531:
513:
512:
495:
476:
475:
452:
451:
407:
405:
404:
382:
374:
373:
357:
355:
354:
336:
335:
334:
329:
324:
316:
315:
307:
305:
304:
293:
286:
273:
257:
256:
253:
244:
233:
232:
169:
112:
111:
106:
96:
91:
74:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
542:
530:
528:
524:
520:
515:
514:
510:
507:
501:
496:
494:
490:
486:
481:
478:
477:
474:
470:
466:
461:
457:
454:
453:
450:
447:
444:
443:
439:
435:
431:
429:
426:
423:
420:
417:
413:
410:
409:
408:
403:
400:
394:
388:
383:
380:
376:
375:
371:
367:
363:
360:
359:
358:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
330:
325:
320:
319:
318:
317:
313:
312:Speedy delete
310:
309:
308:
303:
300:
294:
291:
287:
284:
280:
276:
275:
274:
271:
270:
266:
262:
254:
252:
250:
248:
245:
242:
241:
240:
238:
228:
224:
221:
218:
214:
210:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
178:
175:
174:Find sources:
170:
167:
163:
157:
153:
149:
145:
140:
136:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:
110:
107:
104:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
86:
85:
83:
78:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
518:
516:
485:Adam Sampson
479:
455:
441:
411:
406:
361:
356:
311:
306:
289:
272:
258:
236:
234:
222:
216:
208:
201:
195:
189:
183:
173:
75:
56:
55:
49:
47:
31:
28:
199:free images
523:talk page
505:Spiderone
279:this edit
277:Note: in
37:talk page
525:or in a
414:, needs
348:contribs
162:View log
103:glossary
39:or in a
480:Delete:
456:Delete:
412:Comment
398:Tigraan
387:Kin kad
340:Kin kad
298:Tigraan
283:Kin kad
237:deleted
205:WP refs
193:scholar
135:protect
130:history
80:New to
416:WP:TNT
362:Delete
177:Google
139:delete
50:delete
366:WP:A7
261:Zac67
220:JSTOR
181:books
156:views
148:watch
144:links
118:IPv10
70:IPv10
16:<
489:talk
469:talk
438:siro
379:this
344:talk
265:talk
213:FENS
187:news
152:logs
126:talk
122:edit
465:scs
227:TWL
160:– (
52:.
502:.
491:)
471:)
350:)
346:•
281:,
267:)
259:--
207:)
164:|
154:|
150:|
146:|
142:|
137:|
133:|
128:|
124:|
60:iz
487:(
467:(
463:—
446:o
442:χ
389::
385:@
342:(
263:(
231:)
223:·
217:·
209:·
202:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
179:(
171:(
168:)
158:)
120:(
105:)
101:(
57:L
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.