Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO/TC 262

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 redirect‎ to International Organization for Standardization#ISO divisions. The article is 10 years old, draftification here, as mentioned, would be back door deletion. This technical committee is listed at the ISO article, redirection there. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISO/TC 262

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

ISO/TC 262 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Not finding WP:SIGCOV in independent sources; my WP:BEFORE search turns up plenty of non-independent sources (e.g. [1][2]), but nothing substantial. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to International Organization for Standardization or Draftify as as ATD, as it is, lacks citations, even contents are yet to be filled, barely a stub.Lorraine Crane (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lorraine Crane: I'd oppose a redirect, given it is not mentioned at the target. Generally, WP:ATD-I is only applicable when there is a good chance of improvement and/or there is a good reason to believe it will be notable soon (e.g. it is an event schedule to occur soon). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 12:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If draftification is all we are going to do, I'd support that. But I'll be shocked if that amounts to anything more than WP:G13. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:36, 6 July 2025 (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.