Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BS 7925-1

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 ISO/IEC 29119#ReplacedStandards. Consensus here is weak despite two relists. That said there doesn't seem any support for keeping the article, and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BS_7925-1[edit]

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

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

Superceded Andrew D Banks (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that this BS 7925-1 stub-page be deleted, with a redirection to ISO/IEC 29119.

This BS 7925-1 article has very limited content, and this standard has now been superseded by ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-1 - so what little is here, is obsolete anyway!

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Note: I posted this on the Talk Page of the article on 13 October 2017, with no response (for or against!)

Andrew D Banks (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete As with its -2 partner, there extremely few hits anywhere on this. Mangoe (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: If this wasn't at AfD if would be a non-controversial convert page to a redirect to ISO/IEC 29119#ReplacedStandards (I've just created the anchor on the target whilst fixing a cite). Allows those come across this in time to come to easily see whats its about.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
* Absolutely happy to make this a redirect instead of deleting Andrew D Banks (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 20:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This relist is less than 7 days after the previous one. Together with the fact Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BS 7925-2 (albeit that should have been listed on the same review) I am quite concerned this relist was not done with due diligence. I have requested on the sister AfD all further comments are on here for the sake of sanity. The original AfD proposer who appears to be a subject matter expert has been wishing a redirect/merge for some time and perhaps has been a little too cautious about rigorously going about trying to do the right thing in my opinion, but he is willing to do this. The one delete we have is article to be redirected has few hits. Now while I get concerned about deleting an article that is (currently) getting a lot of hits a small number of hits it does not mean an article with a low number of hits is unimportant. Now only a few number of people are likely to come across ISO/IEC 29119 and BS 7925 but the latter will still hang about on documents long after its been forgotten about. Then people may ask wikipedia ... help ... what is BS 7925 ... then the little redirect is useful to people who come across it. I would be grateful if this was closed soonest to let nominator get on with his merge. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relistings are very nearly a full week (less than three hours from being so) apart. With no clear consensus established and very little participation, a relisting is reasonable, in my opinion. Strikerforce^Talk 13:38, 28 June 2018 (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.