Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Standard 2243.2: 2006 Safety in Laboratories - Chemical Aspects


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Australian Standard 2243.2: 2006 Safety in Laboratories - Chemical Aspects

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article describing an obscure dangerous materials handling standard does not appear to be on a notable topic and is written as a how-to guide. As such, it fails WP:N and WP:NOTHOW. The article seems to have been one of a series of articles on similar obscure topics created as part of an university project - this has been discussed at: WP:AWNB. I nominated this article for prod deletion, but this was disputed. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete nom makes strong arguments how this does not meet notability. LibStar (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and notability guidelines. The category of standards might be notable enough for a section in some umbrella article, but this one by itself doesn't pass muster. LordVetinari (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep relevant almanac type   information, and that's one of the purposes of the encyclopedia, though probably could be significantly shortened. Not the least trivial or obscure--such regulations are a major part of any laboratory activity. We need similar ones for other countries.    DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * and this info is easily found on the relevant standards website. Not to mention that this is WP:COPYVIO and WP:NOTHOWTO. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk &#124; email) 23:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a regulatory handbook. Barring substantial media coverage of this particular law, it doesn't belong. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * it's not even a law, it's a standard that is not legally enforcable. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Even more reason to be rid of it, then. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails notability guidelines - it's a highly obscure Australian standard that has never been covered in reliable secondary sources. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.