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.
Delete - Even with good sourcing (which this does not have), it would be difficult to imagine passing GNG. Clearly fails SIGCOV and nothing else points to notability. Cheers,
Last1in (
talk)
02:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The sources you've found are good, but sourcing is really only a small part of the problem. AS3959 is an individual standard that, as important as it may be in specific circumstances, is simply not that notable. For comparison, consider the
Florida Building Code article which includes the HVHZ standard for cyclone protection. That standard is often mentioned in industry and news recaps whenever major tropical storms strike worldwide (either as, 'Why don't we have...' or 'Why our standard is better than...'). That piece of the code, though, is simply referenced in the overall article because having a separate article is
WP:UNDUE. The same is true of AS3959. As an AtD, I could get behind a Merge into
Standards Australia. Cheers,
Last1in (
talk)
12:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the subject's notability, in light of the references proposed, would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. The article could also be titled "Building to reduce fire hazards in areas prone to brush fires in Australia", but
AS3959 is a good shortcut for that and is recognized by people working in construction and fire prevention in Australia. I think the references are adequate. There are many articles on other national and international standards as well as on the bodies that create these standards. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)15:19, 29 August 2023 (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.
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.
Delete - Even with good sourcing (which this does not have), it would be difficult to imagine passing GNG. Clearly fails SIGCOV and nothing else points to notability. Cheers,
Last1in (
talk)
02:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The sources you've found are good, but sourcing is really only a small part of the problem. AS3959 is an individual standard that, as important as it may be in specific circumstances, is simply not that notable. For comparison, consider the
Florida Building Code article which includes the HVHZ standard for cyclone protection. That standard is often mentioned in industry and news recaps whenever major tropical storms strike worldwide (either as, 'Why don't we have...' or 'Why our standard is better than...'). That piece of the code, though, is simply referenced in the overall article because having a separate article is
WP:UNDUE. The same is true of AS3959. As an AtD, I could get behind a Merge into
Standards Australia. Cheers,
Last1in (
talk)
12:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the subject's notability, in light of the references proposed, would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. The article could also be titled "Building to reduce fire hazards in areas prone to brush fires in Australia", but
AS3959 is a good shortcut for that and is recognized by people working in construction and fire prevention in Australia. I think the references are adequate. There are many articles on other national and international standards as well as on the bodies that create these standards. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)15:19, 29 August 2023 (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.