Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New IP

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. Michig (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New IP

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:IMPORTANCE -- not notable, from an editorial sponsored by software-defined networking company, Brocade Communications Systems. nenolod (talk) (edits) 13:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional background is seen in the article it came from -- [1], there was no mention of "the new IP" in relation to networking until then, in fact, a google search for "the new IP" shows lots of listings about intellectual property; not networking. My conclusion is that it's just wiki spam, and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenolod (talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The terms New IP and The New IP were trademarked at the USPTO by Brocade Communications Systems on Aug 19, 2014 (t/m serial numbers: 86371458 and 86371460). I concur that this article should be deleted. The term is purely a marketing term. --User:nickhilliard

I also agree that the page The New IP should be deleted. In fact, if you wanted to learn what it was, the current Wikipedia page for it will get you nothing you need to know what it really is. I vote for deletion. Seer (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting thing is, the Brocade CEO won't even tell people what The New IP even is. So not only is it marketing, its marketing for a product that doesn't exist yet. I agree, this should be deleted. Diablo-D3 (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- If you Google "The New IP" you get a lot of news article hits. Example [2]. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are lots of new articles - the Brocade CEO has been flogging his wares. All the news articles are copy-pasterino of that and this wikipedia article that is proposed for deletion. It is a junk marketing term not an actual thing which is precisely the point - this Wikipedia article is part of the problem not the solution. It doesn't make the grade of WP:IMPORTANCE and is WP:PROMOTION (see 1, 2, 4 and 5) and nothing more. FWIW it may some day be an actual thing but today it isn't and the only company pushing it that's involved in tech at all (as in being non-news) are the company that owns the Trademark. Wikipedia should have all kinds of issues with that. Streaky (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: obvious WP:ARTSPAM ("...simplify network processes, increase flexibility and control from users, and provide an alternative..."). Tigraan (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The term is as per above WP:PROMOTION, doesn't make the grade of WP:IMPORTANCE (the article sources are copypastrami of each other), is mostly just a link to SDN and NFV which this term may or may not be adverspam for (hard to really tell from any of the articles) - but the principles encapsulated would be better discussed there despite being purely marketing terms in their own right. It doesn't make the grade for notability by any standard definition but even if it hypothetically did it's just the beginning of this article's issues and why it shouldn't exist. Streaky (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom and what others have said. Wgolf (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2015 (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.