Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z39.70


 * 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 and redirect.  Citi Cat   ♫ 02:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Z39.70

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Google confirms the existence of something named Z39.70, but it only gives ~200 hits, which don't give the impression of notability. The one-sentence article is woefully insufficient and might technically fall under speedy deletion criterion A1 (no context). Shalom Hello 04:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This article isn't even a complete sentence. If someone wants to support this article, perhaps they could identify where the content could be merged to rather than deleting it. --Metropolitan90 04:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It's not even a stub, really. It may be more appropriate as a redirect. Of course if the article could be expanded somewhat, it might be possible to make a determination of notability. Right now, that's not possible. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to National Information Standards Organization for now, as they are responsible for the Z39 sequence. There could be a viable article later, compare Z39.50. Leibniz 13:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * weak delete unless someone is willing to do it right. it's the basic standard for data formatting in library circulation systems. There's no point in redirecting to something as large as Niso. It would make more sense to do an article on Z39.xx as a group of library-related standards. Perhaps I can interest somebody but otherwise delete without prejudice to re-creation. DGG (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect As above; a kind fellow can expand it back out later as needed. • Lawrence Cohen  13:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect makes the best sense here. There's nothing much to keep that isn't better done on the NISO page. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:10, 31 August 2007 (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.