Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G.114 (2nd nomination)

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 merge to ITU-T#Key standards published by ITU. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 17:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G.114

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This survived an AfD 15 years ago based on the usual old arguments that 'it may be important/there may be sources/etc.'. 15 years ago we have higher standards, this is still a jargon-full, nearly unreadable stub copied from some technical documentation, and it fails WP:GNG badly. WP:BEFORE does not reveal anything outside expected mentions in passing in technical documentations. At best, this can be redirected somewhere (through there's no referenced content to merge). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No vote because this article makes.... no sense. I can't understand what on earth it's talking about so it might or might not be notable whatsoever. Maybe WP:TNT if anyone actually knows what it's about? Mosaicberry (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Come to think of it, there is a slight chance that this is a copy of some technical manual, that might belong on wikisource if this is PD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to ITU-T#Key standards published by ITU. Not notable on its own. Mccapra (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability in independent sources. Not opposed to a redirect if it's added, with sources, to another article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into ITU-T#Key standards published by ITU as also suggested by Mccapra Graywalls (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:01, 20 April 2019 (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.