Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STANAG 3910

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. Consensus favors the notion that this topic is not sufficiently notable for its own article, but apparently we do have an article on a related subject. Any content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STANAG 3910[edit]

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

Not an encyclopedia article. Hard to tell what it's about, but it seems to be about the development of a product, with a distinctly spammy feel. No independent references. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes no claims about the notability of whatever its topic is (I agree that it's difficult to determine this from the article). It's also out of date (the 'EF2000 Typhoon' received a slight name change about a decade ago, and has long been in production). Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - gaahh, my eyes, they bleed. At the very least needs some WP:TNT charges and as noted the information is badly outdated and spammy - it's borderline WP:G11 even. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) standard. Just FYI. No opinion on deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We already have articles on some STANAGs, and I think this one merits a stand-alone article. It is mentioned in a few DTIC reports, e.g. [1], [2], and also has some coverage in this book, this book, and another book. If we don't keep the article, can we at least redirect to MIL-STD-1553, which it is closely related to? --Cerebellum (talk) 00:21, 1 March 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) 14:57, 3 March 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, v/r - T P 20:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MIL-STD-1553. I fail to see why this particular STANAG merits its own article. If there's some greater significance that I'm not getting, then please, fill me in, but as it is I see nothing to make this procedural agreement stand out from the other 1300. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 21:33, 14 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.