IPv10 : 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.  Most trackable discussions are about whether the proposal is technically serious or a hoax.  [25] [26] [27] 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.  -- Zac67 ( talk ) 08:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: in this edit , Kin kad left the following message IPv6 has serious drawbacks and is not capable of routing the available Range blocks sizes and most IP addresses are un routable/manageable.  followed by a gigantic table.  Because of the giant table and the fact that their edit overwrote Zac67's nomination, I reverted the edit.  Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete The article IPv10  for the follow reasons: The article is about a notable subject hence the article is notable Every Theory in this article is notable as it has been Cherry picked out of articles of IPv4 and IPv6.  The article is noteworthy as its addressing a genuine problem with IPv6 and the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses.  comment added by Kin kad ( talk • contribs ) 09:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I considered tagging WP:A7 because it has "no credible indication of notability", but decided against it because of the topic (it’s not about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event - "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.  However, note that even sources that say the proposal is crap could establish notability.  For instance this is in-depth and independent of the subject (but probably not reliable, it’s a random company’s blog).  @ Kin kad : Please stop discussing the merits of the proposal, those are irrelevant.  We are not going to evaluate those for ourselves .  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 Wikipedia.  Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , needs WP:TNT , 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 [28] .  This one may have sigcov harder to tell [29] .  Here's one with just a mention [30] Here are a couple more scholarly sources, but I'm not very confident on reliability [31] [32] .  May be more appropriate for such an article to be at History of IPv10 given the strange nature of the path this topic has taken.  — siro χ o 09:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: As near as I can tell, IPv10 is a seven year old draft proposal 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 Wikipedia article.  — scs ( talk ) 12:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: 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 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.  Adam Sampson ( talk ) 16:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:01, 29 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete