Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO/TC 37/SC 2

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 speedy delete. All 5 subcomittees speedily deleted per G12 (copyvios) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISO/TC 37/SC 2

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article, no indication of importance. The Banner talk 22:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion seems to be that the subject is not important. This pages are about the committees who develop important standards within the ISO organization. The standards deal with terminology, language resources, translating and interpreting. If there is something which should be added please suggest this. I am new to Wikipedia and am happy to take advice on improving this page. However, it is important. Peterrey (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)peterrey Peter Reynolds.[reply]

So far, you give no evidence that this sub committee is notable. You can try to prove this with reliable, independent (= non-ISO) sources. The Banner talk 07:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added {{Unreferenced}} tag but this seems a potentially valuable item Gregkaye (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per The Banner. We have a nice (but not overly-long) ISO/TC 37 article on the committee that could have a sentence or two about each subcommittee's scope and any key actions. But it doesn't seem like the subcomittee itself is independently notable. This suite of articles (there are several other /SC as well) seems too detailed, getting towards WP:NOTDIR of corporate structure and mostly just a way of collecting and organizating links to the various ISO standards each develops. That last idea sounds like a great scope of List of International Organization for Standardization standards as a unified and organized list. DMacks (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just found we already have that list (I fixed the link in my previous comment). If the committees handling them are particularly relevant (would someone actually want to search by that criterion?), could have an alternative page with them organized that way rather than strictly numerically. DMacks (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO/TC 37/SC 1 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO/TC 37/SC 5 here. Their articles:

are parallel subcommittes of the same parent, nominated with the same rationale and with same response, but fewer other comments. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty question: is ISO/TC 37 notable? The Banner talk 21:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as described above. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge agree with User:The Banner, User:Joe Decker, and User:DMacks LuigiToeness (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make things even more confusing, I notice that ISO/TC 37/SC 3 and ISO/TC 37/SC 4 have both been deleted under G12 Unambiguous copyright infringement, although I've been unable to verify the documents the deletion notices claim were infringed. Before we go off into merge-land, we should figure out if the /SC1, 2, and 5 articles, being discussed here, have similar copyvio problems. Pinging @RHaworth: and @FreeRangeFrog: to get their input. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.