Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C22.2 NO. 152-M1984


 * 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 Canadian Standards Association.  MBisanz  talk 00:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

C22.2 NO. 152-M1984

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Too specialized for a general purpose encyclopedia, cannot be expanded in a meaningful way Generally, individual standards do not merit an encyclopedia article because they have extremely limited interest to persons other than specialists in the field - standards committees make sure of this. Unless someone is prepared to write an extensive balanced article on any standard, it will be only a stub listing at best the standard's title - which is information just as easily gotten from the organization's own Web site. Better to refer to an organization's Web site where the information will be authoritative, comprehensive, and current. There are thousands of CSA standards alone, none of which are realistically going to be turned into a feature-class article on Wikipedia in my lifetime. It's impossible to research the creation of these standards unless you're a participant (in which case it's original research), it's impossible to give any useful details from the standards without risking copyright infringement, quoting a mangled subset of a standard with the usual Wikipedia throughness and fact checking gives only a mutilated idea of what's in the standard in the first place - misleading to the general public, and useless to someone who is actually working in the field covered by the standard. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Canadian Standards Association. If someone searches specifically for this standard, at least they'll have someplace to be directed to with helpful links. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is really informative lol. 155.198.13.93 (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete An article needs more information than this. I point out the the official text of standards is very difficult and expensive to obtain, so articles on widely used standards referred to in relatively non-specialized literature would be very appropriate here, but not just listings of their titles. I would encourage people to try to write these articles. There is no need that the resulting article be feature class. But this one does not seem likely to be improved to even minimal acceptability anytime soon. DGG (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep history and redirect to either Canadian Standards Association or a list of related standards. If the consensus is delete the article history, copy text and GFDL history to talk page of redirect target.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm the one who deprodded this awhile back.  I still think these should exist as stubs but I recognize that unlike, say, living species, there's no WP:CONSENSUS for this and likely won't be one any time soon.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:10, 10 December 2008 (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.