Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS3959


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

AS3959

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the subject's notability, in light of the references proposed, would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even with good sourcing (which this does not have), it would be difficult to imagine passing GNG. Clearly fails SIGCOV and nothing else points to notability. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete - This is an extremely important construction standard in Australia, and relevent to a country which experiences frequent and damaging fires, such as 2019–20 Australian bushfire season. Deleting this is just living in an ivory tower.TrimmerinWiki (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "extremely important construction standard" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found some useful references such as https://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/suppliers/weepa-products/bushfire-compliance-the-small-details-matter-1 and https://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/features/comment/dr-ian-weir-on-designing-bushfire-responsive-housi Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources you've found are good, but sourcing is really only a small part of the problem. AS3959 is an individual standard that, as important as it may be in specific circumstances, is simply not that notable. For comparison, consider the Florida Building Code article which includes the HVHZ standard for cyclone protection. That standard is often mentioned in industry and news recaps whenever major tropical storms strike worldwide (either as, 'Why don't we have...' or 'Why our standard is better than...'). That piece of the code, though, is simply referenced in the overall article because having a separate article is WP:UNDUE. The same is true of AS3959. As an AtD, I could get behind a Merge into Standards Australia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete neither of the sources provided above meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources above do not meet SIGCOV. It also fails WP:GNG.  Flutter Dash 344  ( talk ) 03:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article could also be titled "Building to reduce fire hazards in areas prone to brush fires in Australia", but AS3959 is a good shortcut for that and is recognized by people working in construction and fire prevention in Australia. I think the references are adequate. There are many articles on other national and international standards as well as on the bodies that create these standards. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG and WP:KITCHENSINK. TarnishedPathtalk 08:41, 1 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.