Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPv6Gate


 * 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. X clamation point  01:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

IPv6Gate

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable web proxy. Google brings back 825 hits for "IPv6Gate". Most of the hits are directly related to the company's site, the Wikipedia article, or web postings by the owner of the site (who also happens to be the author of this article it appears). The two SlashDot references also seem to be posted by the owner of the website, so it's not exactly independent coverage of it. For an Internet-based program, I would expect a lot more than 825 hits to show its notability. either way (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:WEB clearly spam, we can't have a wiki page for every kid and his proxy. Moggiethemeow (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC) — Moggiethemeow (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has been blocked as a sockpuppet. either way (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing web notability guideline, also is a bit too spammy Lets  drink  Tea  17:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope that you did note that the same single user (See User_talk:Saint-billy, User_talk:82.6.12.186,User_talk:81.102.44.250 and User_talk:67.165.228.224) was adding those tags to the pages. Also, the reason why you do not find many hits in Google (or for that matter in Baidu as there are a lot of Chinese users) is that there is an explicit robots.txt blocking robots from indexing the pages it refers to. It is fun to see that WP "Admins" do collaborate in getting links to sixxs.org properly closed so that it can't be used for spamming and then want delete the Talk:IPv6Gate talk page so that the whole history of that is gone. That Talk page describes WHY those links are blocked. But maybe that should be part of the main article? Jeroen (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another note there is that IPv6Gate serves a LOT of Wikpedia users in regions where IPv6 is available but where Wikipedia is BLOCKED on IPv4. Indeed, you won't find many hits in Google about that either, try searching on Baidu though and various other Chinese and such region search engines and you will find a lot more links and information about it. That something is not 'notable' for you, doesn't mean it is not notable for the rest of the planet. Jeroen (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB I'd expect a heck of a lot more hits than that on something specifically about the web. More importantly, just 1 google news hit, and that's just a passing mention in an anonymous comment on the Chinese slashdot site. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete Irrespective of number of Google hits, or any other measure of how well known it is, the whole character of the article is spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as it seems to be verifiably notable despite being "behind the scenes" technology. My standards for WP:SPAM are also a lot lower for free services/non-profits, particularly those that appear to benefit Wikipedia. -- samj in out 12:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * what part of the article proves notability to you? either way (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2009 (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.