Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS/NZS 3788


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Hydrostatic test. RL0919 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

AS/NZS 3788

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG. TarnishedPathtalk 11:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. TarnishedPathtalk 11:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete My PROD was removed with no improvement. No indication this generic standard is notable – there's a lot of standards out there and would need sources and explanation beyond statement of existence. Reywas92Talk 13:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Multiple Merge targets proposed here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. We are just trying to settle on one Merge target article here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge into Standards Australia - Follow-on to AS3959. Even with good sourcing (which this does not have), the subject does not pass WP:GNG. It clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and nothing else points to notability. This is an individual standard that, as important as it may be in specific circumstances, is simply not that notable. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Many standards, including this one, are adopted by government agencies and therefore have the force of law. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The result would be identical if it were an actual law. On its own, it is simply not notable. The Standards Australia article is the right home for this info. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This does not make them notable in and of themselves. Please refer to WP:KITCHENSINK. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. TarnishedPathtalk 00:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I could not find any coverage that would meet GNG. The fact that many standards have the force of law is irrelevant to satisfying GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge maybe into Hydrostatic test NealeWellington (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to hydrostatic test, seems the more appropriate redirect. Deus et lex (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.