Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO 361


 * 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 Hazard symbol.  MBisanz  talk 18:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

ISO 361

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "This article suggests that this ISO is about a symbol, a claim not backed up by sources, nor mentioned in Hazard_symbol nor Ionizing_radiation. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Note: if there is no arguments to the contrary, I propose redirecting to List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-4999 per WP:SOFTDELETE and WP:ATD" It was deprodded by User:Spinningspark with the following rationale "deprod. I don't know why you have doubt what this standard is for. The ISO link plainly says it. At worst a merge case, no need for deletion". However, there is no referenced content to merge and further, I stand by my view that this article is confusing - is the standard just a symbol? While this may be the case, the lack of references, confirmation in other relevant articles, and general lack of notability in the current sub-stub reinforce my view that this should be redirected (unless someone can expand it; I'll note the German article is longer, but similarly poorly referenced). IMHO unless notability can be shown, a redirect to the ISO list of symbols is sufficient, although it might be good to expand the tiny entry there to link to the articles I mention in my first sentence. Last thought: it may be that the symbol family is in fact notable, culturally-wise, and someone could write an article on this, but if so, it should be under radiation hazard warning signs, discussing cultural references/recognition, etc. At that point, once a proper article exists, this could be redirected there instead. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Perhaps it is time to seek a consensus that the work of the International Organization for Standardization is sufficiently important that all ISO standards are inherently notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but until this is done there is no exception, and often enough ISO AfD discussions are closed as redirects, ex. Articles for deletion/ISO 5 from just few days ago. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hazard symbol, where for instance ☢ currently redirects. The concept of a radiation hazard symbol is clearly encyclopedic, with plenty of sources, and could plausibly be a standalone article, but our coverage of this at the hazard symbol article is much more complete. If kept, this should be broadened to cover the more general concept of a radiation hazard symbol without so much focus on the weeds of the ISO standardization of that symbol. (I have left a pointer to this discussion at Talk:Hazard symbol, as I think should be required when actions involving non-nominated articles are discussed at AfDs.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not against a merge, but I am against simply redirecting as proposed by the nom. That amounts to redirecting to a target that does not discuss the term being redirected. Piotrus nominates far too many articles on this basis.  If the nom really meant a merge they could have done that as a BOLD edit and it almost certainly would not have been challenged.  The claim that the article does not have reliable sources is utter nonsense.  The one source it has is the ISO page on the standard.  There is nothing in the article that is not in the abstract on that page.  Is the claim that ISO is not a reliable source for the contents of its own standards?  Further information on the ISO history is here (how the standard developed from a 1963 recommendation).  And here is a source independent of ISO that briefly touches on the importance of the standard. SpinningSpark 06:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ISO is certainly not an independent reliable source that can be used to establish the notability of its own standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't say it was. I was responding to "...there is no referenced content to merge...".  It's a reliable source in this article and would become an independent reliabe source in a merged article that was not about the ISO. SpinningSpark 08:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I object to bold redirecting, which IMHO is nothing but a stealth deletion. Deletion, or redirecting, should be reviewed by the community. Since proposals to create any separate procedure for reviewing redirects are shut down, AfD is the way to discuss this. As for the merge, there is no referenced content to merge. The external link to ISO standards page is hardly a "source", and it probably exists on the proposed redirect target page anyway. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What is your rationale for it not being a source? You can't make that so by your fiat. The information in the article clearly came from there, ipso facto it is the source of the article. And no, it is not in the target article nor is the standard even mentioned. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It could be a mislabelled source (in EL section). So what? It doesn't change the fact that this source is not enough to establish the notability of the concept, per what others already said. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a mislabelled EL, it's under the references section. Even a cursory look shows the information in our article is in the source. As long as you are unwilling to move the information into another article, I am against a redirect and staying with "keep". <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect Redirect with merge to Hazard symbol. People searching for 'ISO 361' should get a sensible response: indeed ideally we should have 'safety nets' for as many ISO standards as we can. BUT that does not mean that each one has a trivial stub article if we already have entirely suitable and more comprehensive articles that they can be redirected to. Of course the target article needs at least an anchor but that is just an incidental detail when what is being discussed here is the principle. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarified my vote since, in the light of the squabble above, it is necessary to state the obvious: a blind redirect would not happen, it would redirect to a section or anchor that enumerated and described the relevant ISO standard(s). And ANSI, BS, EUN and anything else relevant if it comes to that. Sigh. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge to Hazard symbol or Ionizing_radiation. I see no basis whatsoever to suggest that ISO standards are inherently notable. Should they be discussed in the relevant article? Absolutely. But should they automatically be their own pages? No way. Reywas92Talk 14:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge to Hazard symbol.4meter4 (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge to Hazard symbol. The ISO is obviously notable but individual standards. Neither enough content to necessitate a separate article nor a likelihood that it will be expanded much further. Ifnord (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.