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 9241. Since the content has already been merged, a redirect must be kept for attribution purposes. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 13407[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP user per request at WT:AFD. I am neutral.

From article talk page...

As I note at Talk:ISO 13407#AFD nomination, ISO 13407 was created in July 2008 and has been minimally improved since then. While a case could be made that as an ISO standard it starts out with a WP:GNG presumption of notability, a review of of its current content and my review of a sampling of articles from an internet search places notability in question. That, combined with WP:NOTMANUAL issues and the failed attempt a year ago to PROD the article–something I just documented via ((old prod full))–prompts me to request that someone complete my AFD nomination. Thanks in advance. 68.165.77.118 (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The 2,390 gScholar hits which stopped the article's deletion via PROD cannot be ignored. It seems as though the standard has received "significant coverage" as required by the GNG. Not quoted by Ron Ritzman (neutral nominator) was this pro-deletion argument: "It is also worth noting that ISO 13407 was replaced last year by ISO 9241, further undermining its notability." However, notability is not temporary (and I can only assume this is why the nominator left it out). Furthermore, the IP nominator adds "a review of of its current content" to the list of reasons for deletion. Article issues outside of those listed at WP:DEL "should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I "screwed up" and pasted in the IP editor's rationale from WT:AFD instead of the article's talk page as was my original intention. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 03:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article currently lacks any acceptable sources. Are there any that can be shown to meet the WP:GNG?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great question. Yes, I think so. Take this, for example, published in the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies in 2001. The cover page makes it clear that ISO 13407 is an important human-centered design framework which is detailed upon in the text. Page 599 provides detailed coverage of ISO 13407's specifications. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 18:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't ignore WP:NTEMP when I nominated it, I just worded the nomination poorly. ISO standards start with a presumption of notability based just on the organisation's charter. And for that reason they get coverage in multiple places if you define "significant" in terms of numbers of hits without regard to what those multiple hits actually say about the standard. I've been part of groups that have worked on standards in the past, and from that experience I'd suggest that a hypothetical WP:Notability (standards) interpret "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice" to mean that the standard had an impact beyond its mere publication. I took a look at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.101.6086&rep=rep1&type=pdf and found it hard to come up with anything impactful about ISO 13407. Here are some statements from that paper that suggest ISO 13407's notable contributions to making software usable:

bringing together in a meeting all the stakeholders relevant to the development, to create a common vision for how usability can support the project objectives.
recognize the needs of the system user and to specify them in a way that designers can incorporate within the system development process.

Do we even know if Martin Maguire, the author of the citeseerx.ist.psu.edu citation, meets WP:ACADEMIC or is otherwise notable enough to have a perspective on the notability of ISO 13407?

Compare ISO 13407 with the equally minimal, borderline WP:NOTMANUAL article on another standard, SQL:2008, a topic whose notability is established; SQL:2008 includes references from Oracle Corporation and Sybase that demonstrate that the standard has had a notable impact on software. Did ISO 13407 have an impact on Cocoa Touch or some lesser known component of a successful product?

It goes without saying that ISO 13407 belongs in List of International Organization for Standardization standards, but no case has been made for ISO 13407 to have its own separate article or to be more than a redirect to that list. 67.101.7.246 (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can establish that notability is not determined by usefulness, but by coverage in reliable, third-party sources. As for the source I presented, which was only an example, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) does not apply (it's a notability guideline). But even if the author does not meet the guideline, the report was published in the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, a publication that's still around today and cited in plenty of other articles. The standard itself may seem useless, but it has been documented and therefore should satisfy inclusion criteria. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 18:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to find something notable to be said about the article, and came up with the two example above, neither of which demonstrates notability in my judgment. So far, your case is based on hypothetical notability based on numerous undifferentiated citations that aren't in the article. While I appreciate your rapid reply to my previous comment, you should consider responding to Yaksar (talk · contribs)'s earlier request to address the issue that the article still lacks any acceptable sourced details that demonstrates its notability. As it stands right now, it is nothing but a poorly formatted and incomplete table of contents, of questionable value given the policy that Wikipedia is not a manual. 67.101.6.204 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. Speaking of hypothetical evidence, here's a statistic supporting its lack of notability: the three dozen watchers of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing, including in this discussion by Thryduulf (talk · contribs), haven't even commented, yet alone come up with anything that establishes notability of ISO 13407 either.[reply]

Your final argument is not valid when applied to your case. Indeed the watchers of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing "haven't even commented", meaning nobody seems to be rushing in here pressing for deletion either. As for the article itself, WP:NOTMANUAL problems can be corrected through normal editing and improvement, and does not require deletion. I intent to add sources and I will when I have time. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 01:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete and redirect to ISO 9241. I'm with those who say that ISO standards should normally have their own article irrespective of whether they have attracted popular attention. One of the uses of an encylopedia is to help with those questions. But if there isn't anything useful to say about it other than its having been superseded, users will find a straight redirect more helpful AJHingston (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current state of the article is irrelevant to the question of deletion because it is our editing policy to improve weak starts, not to delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ISO_9241. It's worth noting that ISO 9241-210:2010 had a precedent as an earlier approved standard. Diego Moya (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 01:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the editor who initiated this AfD discussion, I've been convinced by the comments of AJHingston (talk · contribs) and Diego Moya (talk · contribs) that it is worth noting that ISO 9241-210:2010 had ISO 13407 as a precedent. So I have merged that detail, with ref, to ISO 9241, details which I now think needed to be added there regardless. What remains, IMHO, is to turn ISO 13407 into a Redirect. 67.101.6.111 (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2011 (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.