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 List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-4999#ISO 1 – ISO 99. Sandstein 12:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Prodded with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". PROD removed by anon with no rationale; article has not been improved since. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would argue that ISO standards ought to be considered inherently notable, like members of parliament, because their development and use is likely to be covered in reliable sources. I can't find evidence of that for this standard, partly because "ISO 5" is also a level of air cleanliness for a cleanroom, and I get a lot of cleanroom hits when I search for ISO 5. See ISO 14644. 14:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Eastmain: you forgot to sign We could have a community discussion about this, but many similar articles about ISO standards that were one-two sentnecers got deleted. IMHO some ISO standard may be notable, but most warrant nothing but a redirect to a list. And we have it: List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-4999. If there is nothing else to we can say about this standard then such a list should be sufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's easy to find detailed technical coverage of this standard – see Colour Engineering, for example. It is therefore an easy pass of WP:GNG, as one would expect for an international standard, and policy WP:ATD applies "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not withstanding Andrew Davidson's generally-valid point. The value of empty articles is that they act as signposts that something could be written about the subject. But in this case the list of all ISO's already acts as a signpost, and contains precisely the same information as the ISO5 article. The statement that "improving the article should be done rather than deleting the page" implies that one of these two options will be done. In the present situation, the likely outcome is that neither will be done. Deleting doesn't stop someone from re-creating the article as soon as anyone has something useful to write about the subject - and I hope this is ultimately what happens. If anyone writes anything useful between now and the closure of this AfD, I'll happily withdraw my "delete". Elemimele (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone wants information about ISO 5 then the title ISO 5 is clear, simple and straightforward for navigation. The suggested alternative of List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-4999 is comparatively useless because its title doesn't even contain the common initials ISO and its content is lengthy and confusing. The stub in question is a plausible foundation for expansion; the bloated list of thousands isn't. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  A redirect will take care of the lack of initials, and for the rest, WP:ITSUSEFUL doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List_of_International_Organization_for_Standardization_standards,_1-4999#ISO_1_–_ISO_99. These aren't automatically notable and I see no case to keep this duplicative article. Reywas92^Talk 14:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above - duplicative, and can be re-expanded into article if sufficient material is ever collated by anyone. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-4999#ISO 1 – ISO 99 without prejudice against turning this into a full-length article in the future. Right now, it's completely redundant to that page. So basically, what Elmidae said. TompaDompa (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-4999#ISO 1 – ISO 99.4meter4 (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2021 (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.