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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tripcode[edit]

Tripcode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails GNG pretty hard... No claim to notability aside from '4chan uses it'. Mythpage88 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, not notable in the slightest. Usually I would consider merging this to 4chan but that is locked. incog (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although a technically sound article, I cannot find any notable sources regarding tripcodes. Murdox (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nasty unreadable article, but this is a significant piece of both theoretical crypto of interest to three people (on a good day) and also a trivial piece of populist interweb culture (the 4chan scumbucket) of vast interest. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources? – Pnm (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete So far no one has cited refs adequate to satisfy WP:N for what is mostly a "how-to" article. Edison (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of this could be merged into imageboard. User:SweetieBelleMLP 19:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd go for that. Mythpage88 (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These things are in use on some popular sites so it figures people will want to know what they are and this is usually the first stop for people wanting to know what something is. Also, the article isn't incorrect in any aspect as I can see. If it is to be deleted it would be better to merge content to imageboard as the above poster suggested.--Lead holder (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect could be made to direct people to said information. User:SweetieBelleMLP 17:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL, WP:VALINFO, WP:IKNOWIT, WP:Subjective importance, etc. Mythpage88 (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting it may be, but without any secondary sources of note this is just a somewhat drawn-out Internet version of WP:MADEUP. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I tried looking for sources and drew an almost complete blank - an extremely brief mention in a Fox News piece about 4chan was the high point. Nothing here to meet WP:GNG or seemingly any other guideline. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2012 (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.