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 keep. There seems to be general agreement that the title/topic are encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion, even though the list itself needs work. Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international common standards[edit]

List of international common standards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

There's no clear definition of what does or doesn't belong on this list. It's just a loose collection of some standard-like topics; just a smattering from several different categories. It doesn't seem fixable. I don't think there's anything you could develop this article into that doesn't already exist as an article. Ike9898 (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ike9898 (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have edited the lead-in to more clearly describe what the list is about and what should or shouldn’t be included on the list. I originally created the list because there wasn’t a list which referenced similar standards which can relate to one another, even though the categories of standards included is broad. I understand that the list may seem a loose collection of different categories, I do think this list is of value, useful for education about different standards and for linked reference purposes. RW Marloe (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep International standards are obviously notable and we don't seem to have any other equivalent list. The only issue seems to be the word "common" in the title, which seems unnecessary. But tinkering with the title would be done by a move, not by deletion. See WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Indiscriminate and random collection here, seemingly original research of various concepts lumped together. Not sure what makes amino acid codes any more "international" or a "standard" than any other scientific notation, or why the recycling symbol, which is not actually internationally standardized ("countless variants of it exist worldwide"), is a standard any more than countless other widely recognized symbols. Traffic lights are not international standards (List of variations in traffic light signalling and operation), nor is the broad topic of musical notation. Tally marks are done differently all over and are by no means a "standard"! The word "common" is not the only issue, and even without these examples this is absurdly vague and goes beyond just needing clean up and should not be kept in mainspace at the least. Reywas92^Talk 03:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just the list of International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards is broken down into at least 25 articles which just list the titles of the standards. This is international standards from just one international standards body. The category Lists of standards contains others, many of which are international. A list of all international standards would be duplicative and better addressed using categories. Ike9898 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CLN explains that categories are not superior to lists and WP:NOTDUPE states that "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Andrew🐉(talk) 19:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• _{Your nomination means it is assumed you support deletion. No need to also !vote.} St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The title of the article is great but the content is random and difficult to understand or navigate. Currently, only technical standards are listed, but basically, anything can be put in this list. I think it should be significantly improved by recategorizing the content and specifying what this article includes at the lead section. nirmal (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per WP:TNT. This article is a decent concept but in its current state is useless, unsalvageable garbage that readers shouldn’t be subjected to. Dronebogus (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid navigational list. Dream Focus 13:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Valid navigational list.4meter4 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A suitable list of national commons. I am against its deletion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. if it neeeds adjustment, that can be done by consesus on the talk p. . This is a good start. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this is a list article, so if the title is great, that means it's a valid topic for a list, and deletion is not necessary (although rewriting may be). This is different from, say, List of politicians with stupid haircuts or List of rich people, which would be bad topics for lists no matter how well they were written (and are rightfully redlinked). jp×g 04:42, 1 October 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.