Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LSTI

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 3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LSTI

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

The LSTI was setup up among industry partners to promote the LTE standard. Started in 2007, it concluded in 2011 and closed its website.([1]) There has never been enough notability to warrant its own article, and merging into the LTE article would introduce undue weight in that (still quite poor) article. Suggest deletion. Nageh (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Just noticing an obvious COI. Makes me wonder why the article hasn't been deleted earlier. Nageh (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge the undue weight problem the nom. mentions can then be dealt with the way it ought to be, by expanding the rest of the article. Articles grow. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The undue weight problem that I mentioned referred to my opinion that the article (content) is not notable. Technical standards typically have many promotional/lobbying groups behind their back; typically, we regard them as non-notable except when their impact is clearly shown. For example, we deleted IPv6 Forum and do not mention it in the IPv6 article even though its notability is most definitely higher than that of the LSTI. Nageh (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: That does not mean I think merging is not a sensible option. I leave the decision to the community. Nageh (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 3GPP Long Term Evolution. The subject doesn't need its own article and the current content can easily be boiled down to a couple of sentences that wouldn't create any undue weight. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In anticipation of the !merge outcome I have added a sentence with two references to the 3GPP Long Term Evolution article. Here is the diff. If you feel that more information should be merged please post on the talk page. Thanks. Nageh (talk) 18:52, 1 March 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.