Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UL 365

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 moot‎. While we normally suggest avoid making such changes during an AfD, the pages have been merged and redirected and there is clearly no inclination here to do anything else. I am closing this discussion because it is moot due to editorial actions in the interim, anyone should feel free to start another discussion of any type.

(non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

UL 365

[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)

Fails

WP:GNG

. I am also nominating the following related pages:

)

)

// Timothy :: talk 22:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Never used talk pages before, is this how we "talk".

I need to google many of the terms in your talk comments?

Reply No need for Google, I have wikilinked the above terms and you might find Wikipedia:Glossary helpful for any other terms you come across. // Timothy :: talk 23:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will be back in about 20 hours, and will reply then.

Some things may be a bit circular at the moment, please bear with me. I am adding the content as I can at work, estimating a week.

Background, I am a security architect, and for work I needed the information I am authoring. I am not affiliated with UL.

I have discovered that the information I and my colleagues needed, is (mostly) not found on the internet. It is many, many closed areas. I feel this information should be in Wikipedia as #3 of the Wikipedia:Five_pillars states. I am privileged to have access to many of the usges of these standards, and the standards themselves. Theses standards are an unseen impact on security, but very large impact they do have. See businesswire.com's "Global Alarm Monitoring Market Report 2021 Market to Reach 57.7 Billion by 2026"[1] for some ideas as to the scope.

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline I see "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article."

Maybe the items I am putting together should go in one page. But "Wikipedia has no firm rules" Jpyeron (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, regarding the secondary sources - there are many non public secondary sources. At the same time a standard is measured not by its citations, but by its usage.

Look at many devices, see the stickers? Here you can see all the companies saying they are compliant with UL 2610: [2]https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22UL+2610%22#ip=1 Jpyeron (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to continue spending my time improving the content, but I would like to get some community

merged

. I am thinking they should be merged in to one page covering the security standards.

Based on my reading of

WP:SIRS

is uniquely narrow for this case. Again, 5th pillar. Can someone cite specifics?

Will follow up in a day. Jpyeron (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the AFD is now classified as "could not be categorised due to insufficient information in the article". I want to continue putting in the information, but: I do not have responses to my above clarifications, and I am not going to put significant investment if it is just going to be deleted.

If the insufficient information is the reason, isn't incubation the proper remedy? Jpyeron (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will merge the articles tomorrow, the new article will have this AFD at the top and the other pages will redirect to it. I think this addresses the "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AfD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community."

The new merged article Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring will also eventually have other non-UL items, such as ISO/IEC 22237-6:2024. I will follow up tomorrow. Jpyeron (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friday got away from me, doing the merge now. creating Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring and then setting the redirects. Jpyeron (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you know, but you left the article deletion tag in the new article.

talk) 18:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I did put it there on purpose, because "removal is not allowed" until consensus. The new article is a merger of the old 3. Jpyeron (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the merger and redirects - I will follow up Monday Jpyeron (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participants here besides the content creator and the nominator. It looks like the nominator didn't set up any deletion sorting, can a helpful editor like Wcquidditch take care of that for this discussion? Many thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Engineering, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated articles were merged and changed into a redirects two days ago. It's discussed in the above "thread" but that's just Jpeyron making a series of comments and nobody objecting. I don't think this is how things are supposed to be done even as part of a good faith effort to resolve the deletion rationale.
I think the appropriate thing is for @Jpyeron to revert the changes and then propose a merge with a rationale given. The merge article can be moved to draftspace. Note that there are rules about WP:Copying within Wikipedia that may also be at play. Oblivy (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do so, it is hard to do the right thing in a vacuum.

Regarding the merge, I created the pages separate, but after reading up on the AfD and associated items the merger process seemed to be the best logical organization.

But I am a bit confused on the "copying" thing. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed .

Note, this week is going to very busy for me, had dedicated time last week for putting the content in. More time after 3-Jun. Jpyeron (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the preference is for leaving pages for deletion in place so they can be assessed by participating editors. On the other hand (and I do this a lot), editors are encouraged to work on improving articles to prevent deletion. It was just very confusing to click through to the article and see that it had been changed to a redirect.
I guess copying rule doesn't apply. I hadn't looked through the history to see that you were the only editor of those pages.
I'm happy to vote merge -- it does seem to be a good outcome, and if one of the sub-subjects turns out to be notable someone can create a
WP:FORK over your redirect page. In which case the copying rule would apply! Oblivy (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I would prefer merge as well.

re: "It was just very confusing to click through to the article and see that it had been changed to a redirect." it is why I added the AFD to the top of the new.

Should I revert? It is much easier to edit in the new doc, and continue to add to it. I am going to hold off on the busy work reversion until there is a clear request/preference to revert. Jpyeron (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge General members of the public rely on alarm system standards to assess the quality, safety, and effectiveness of systems they procure, often looking for certification marks to ensure trust in these products. This article provides an overview of these standards to satisfy the curiosity of those who wish to understand the gist without delving into technical details. For industry stakeholders, it highlights how adherence to these standards facilitates compliance and maintains a competitive edge, serving as a gateway for further detailed exploration of specific standards and best practices. Jpyeron (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please clarify for me, what is the Merge target article here? It can't be one that is also nominated for AFD deletion. Are all articles to be Merged to the same target article? Please be very specific on what outcome you want and do not usurp the discussion and Merge and Redirect before this discussion is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this was discussed above. I am new to this process and trying to do the most meaningful work. Do you want me to revert the redirects at this time? Do you want me to remove the AFD from the new target article? Jpyeron (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
bold and remove it as it doesn't belong to that article. Oblivy (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2024 (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.