Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of computer standards


 * 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   keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

List of computer standards

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

List's intent is so overbroad as to be unmaintainable--the number of "computer standards" in the wild numbers over one hundred thousand in practice. Though this list does have the convenience of listing version numbers and dates, popular standards get out of date very quickly, leading to stale data in the list. A category hierarchy is much more appropriate here. Todd Vierling (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —Todd Vierling (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: If over one hundred thousands, it could be changed to List of notable computer standards. -- Frap (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The core hardware list in the first half of the page is incredibly compact and in no danger of growing out of control - it primarily lists fundemental PC Standards, so perhaps a renaming. I'd recommend a more explicit criteria be chosen to reflect the basically static nature of the Hardware list and t should be kept as a list, and not as a category as it's theme tends naturally to the informative (with the inclusion of release dates and annotaton) and not to simple categorisation. As for anything not fitting that compact description, they should indeed be categorised. I also take issue with removal of links to the page before an AfD is complete, and feel those links should be reinstated until a discussion is had. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment Useful list imho, but Computer standard is a redlink and the term is not defined in this list, which would be an argument to delete per Listcruft. So either the Computer standard article needs to be written, or the list should be renamed (no idea to what name, though). --Pgallert (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, use to generate a Computer standard article. –SJ +  17:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep  Actually,  if one does the simplest possible search in WorldCat it turns out that it's a perfectly good topic with multiple references. To start,  there's an entire journal on the subject from Elsevier, Computer standards and interface worldCat  There's at least one symposium on the subject, WorldCat. There's a LC subject heading: Computers--Standards -- and there are 4,500 books that fall under that subject heading, of which about half are relevant, and 1 in 10 closely relevant, including the standard references ASTM standards on computerized systems  from the major standards organization and IEEE Standards for computers  from the major professional society, and even a USGov index to them Federal information processing standards publications (FIPS PUBS) index. from the  National Bureau of Standards, . Here's a typical textbookInternational standards for the computer industry. .(I'm only stopping because there are 400 more screens of hits to go).  Gavin, I suppose you want to withdraw your vote, since your argument has been shown to be incorrect.  Pgallert, not everything notable yet has a WP article: there seems to be good cause to do one. There are a few million other necessary articles also.  Todd, in your nomination, are you actually opposing a list because there are too many of them--the list can be subdivided as necessary. I've seen lists opposed as not having enough items, but that there are many is an argument for notability. We can handle any size list; we're not paper. That it needs to be maintained, well so does everything else. Every sports article in WP needs to be maintained, and the are 100,000s of them. Every article on a town or city   in WP needs to be maintained, and the are 100,000s of them also. Every person with an active career. (I apologize for using names, but I need to separate out the arguments). DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep : List scope is not too broad at all,in any case I'd like to remind that WP:SALAT is never a reason for deletion, but for reorganization: the guideline says: ''Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists.'. That "popular standards get out of date" is completely irrelevant, because notability is not temporary. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:50, 20 June 2010 (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.