Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G.798

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 redirect to Optical Transport Network. MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G.798

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

I looked at this as it has been tagged for notability for 7 years (Wheelchair Epidemic), and I hoped to be able to resolve it, one way or the other. Unfortunately, it's goobledegook to me. I would tag it for expert help, but it has already been tagged for that for 6 years, without help coming. My investigations showed I couldn't verify notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment'I would like to suggest that this article is kept on wikipedia as it is something which does exist. I have limited knowledge of it as I have only read about it in various manuals and books, never implemented it as it is not my field. If it has been nominated as something which doesn't exist I can inform you that it does exist, however it is just a standard and therefore a niche thing which is just definition at best. Even if you ask an expert he will be able to give you small paragraphs here and there which define the term(Just as it has been already defined in the article). The basic purport is that it is a term meant for people who have advanced knowledge so the books which mention this will not explain it at length as they think that the guy reading them already knows about an ONE and OTN. If what I wrote is confusing, do forgive me and leave a msg on my TP, i'll try to explain further but basically if you are looking for a book which describes this standard with a definition spanning more than one paragraph, I am not sure that if such a book exists . Have a good day, I just saw the nomination and came to give my two centsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG received significant coverage from secondary sources. This of course is something that exists. but the requirement for having an article isn't existence but instead notability. This is not notable. however, content inside notable topics only needs to be reliable and verifiable. so this content could find a home in an notable article on the topic. but the topic is not notable in and of itself. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FreeatlastChitchat, this isn't nominated on the grounds of not existing, but of not meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

kk ty for mentioning that, I was just giving my two cents. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 17 April 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, Nakon 01:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, possibly merge to Optical Transport Network. No indication of separate notability. Sandstein 15:29, 1 May 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.