Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4.2.2.2


 * 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 Delete Viridae Talk 03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

4.2.2.2

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An article on an IP address that happens to be the current home of a DNS server operated by a notable company. Notability is not associative and I'm doubly sure that's the case here - there is nothing special about this server itself; all this article says is that this DNS server acts like any other out there. Awyong J. M. Salleh 03:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

C:\>ping 4.2.2.2
 * Delete I concur with nominator - delete. --Ozgod 03:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Individual IP addresses are not notable, unless we want 4,294,967,296 articles – Qxz 04:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep This is a notable meme. swain 04:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: What meme? Awyong J. M. Salleh 04:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. John Reaves (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Descendall 06:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the article asserts that this particular IP is notable because it is commonly used to check for an active Internet connection. It's a bit difficult to find a quality reference for that, but some googling shows promise.  I've added the two strongest ones I could find thus far: a handout apparently from the Bill Gates Foundation here and the fact that a known virus uses it.  I also found this PDF, but it's unclear what publication that's from (same site as the aforementioned handout). -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Commonly used to check for an active Internet connection" is definitely not the case everywhere; I get the following output:

Pinging 4.2.2.2 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 4.2.2.2: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
 * My point is: Other countries/networks/regions will have their own super-fast DNS servers that the local network gurus swear by. If we're going to have an article on all of these, we're going to end up with thousands, if not tens of thousands, of articles which say nothing much more than "1.2.3.4 is a fast DNS server". Being a fast server is not an assertion of notability, even if your only job is to serve DNS to millions of people. Awyong J. M. Salleh 13:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That handout demonstrates nothing. 4.2.2.2 is used as an example therein, nothing more.  Another example in that handout is 64.64.120.40.  They are both only examples.  You'll find that the difficulty that you have experienced in sourcing the statement that 4.2.2.2 is primarily used to check Internet connections is directly caused by the fact that that statement is false.  &#9786; Uncle G 17:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Two borderline-trivial mentions do not establish whether this IP address is in common use among IT professionals. Besides, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide -- RoninBK T C 11:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no non-trivial articles about this IP address. There are probably many other IP addresses with more google juice than this one.  Some of the facts asserted in the article seem to be WP:OR, speculation, and personal opinion that isn't supported by the cited references.  Also, being used as a test by a non-notable virus can not make the IP notable.  If some non-trivial evidence can be found that 4.2.2.2 is common amongst computer support professionals, maybe it could be a sub-section of the ping article.  If there is an article about the trivial virus, then maybe 4.2.2.2 should be a sub-section therein.  --JJLatWiki 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tangentially related comment: In my experience the bad guys' IPs - open proxies, spammers, etc - get the most Ghits. Awyong J. M. Salleh 17:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment My point exactly. So if this IP stays, so shouldn't any about an open proxy, open smtp relay, or spammer?  --JJLatWiki 17:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivia -- Whpq 17:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The article should by all means be deleted, but I have to say that last week I would have KILLED to know about this server.  It would be nice if this information could stay in Wikipedia somewhere. I looked into adding it to the DNS article, but there really isn't a place for it, there. --Mdwyer 18:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "Weak Keep" and "by all means be deleted"? --JJLatWiki 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah. By all rules this should be deleted.  However, I want to throw in a WP:ILIKEIT.  That is, for the good of Wikipedia, it should be deleted.  But for the good of its users it should be kept.  How's that for a waffle! --Mdwyer 17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Best waffle I've seen since hiking through Belgium, and way better than IHOP. --JJLatWiki 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR and nn vanity. D Mac Con Uladh 21:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a single DNS is not notable absent much better sourcing.-- danntm T C 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey cool, I use that IP--I mean, delete. I've used that one before on a computer, friends gave me it for it's speed. Notable for me, not for Wikipedia. Delete. - Denny 06:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because otherwise I would have had no idea what 4.2.2.2 was for. I googled it and this was the only useful link. 25th February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.196.92.110 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
 * The first page of results is filled with irrelevant mentions of 4.2.2.2 as section number in reports, etc. Try 4.2.2.2 dns for a more relevant search. (Yes, that means even if this article is deleted you can always find the same info elsewhere.) Awyong J. M. Salleh 17:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to ping. If more "notable" ping targets come up then there could eventually be an article on them, but for now just add a section to Ping. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:14Z 
 * Comment It seems more notable as a DNS target than as a ping target. How about merge with Domain Name Service as I sort of suggested above? Mdwyer 21:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Domain Name Service is a good solution also. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 23:00Z 
 * 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.