Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/512k day


 * 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   no consensus. No clear consensus, but merging seems to be the most-supported option, and could be discussed further on the talk page.  Sandstein  10:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

512k day

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An incident that caused delays for a couple of hours is not what I would call notable. Mostly it has only been noticed in the ISP and router industries. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Commment - Unsure on this one. I did find these;, , , , , .  JT dale Talk ~ 16:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The mention in the BGP article Routing Table Growth section is enough. There was some news coverage. While Notability is not temporary, but this one fails WP:PERSISTENCE. A thing happened on the internet, they fixed it that day, and it was forgotten. The name was coined by the register and used in a single article and some reddit posts.  Trysha (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge with BGP As I allude to on the article's talk page, there's no certainty whatsoever this will be a one-shot event. The Routing Table Growth section of BGP should be expanded to include more content from 512k day and only then should the original article be deleted.  The content will be relevant for years to come, and I knew the event as "512k day" and that's what I searched on - prima facie proof of its notability (or notoriety!), at least for now.  --Athompso99 03:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you do merge, the original can not be deleted, but should be redirected instead. See WP:Merge and delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep or Merge as needed: the event itself probably belongs on List of software bugs involving a Cisco router product. It was also primarily an issue involving BGP and lack of anticipated IPv6 adoption (increased IPv4 address-space fragmentation). Is it better to explain it in one place, or 3-4? The latter happens a lot on here. Cwolfsheep (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – This article is referenced (WP:MANYLINKS) by a number of important articles, including Border Gateway Protocol, Data buffer, Year 2000 problem, Default-free zone, and IPv4 address exhaustion. The incident itself may have been short, but it illustrates a number of important points for those other articles. If we merged it, it would hard to justify carrying over all of the detail (WP:PARENTSIZE), which would be a shame because when I read about an incident like this I want to know exactly what happened, so that I understand it. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2014 (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.