Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATEX directive (2nd nomination)

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 requested to be closed by nominator. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 14:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATEX directive

The article is unencyclopedic and full of jargon -- Npnunda 00:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel, in it's current state it should be deleted. If someone wanted to add it later and rewrite it so it was more like an encyclopedia and less like a work manual that would be fine with me. --Npnunda (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- No reason for deletion stated, seven interwiki links and a external link/reference to a eu page shows notability to me, agree page should be rewritten and improved, but not deleted. The german and polish pages look quite good. All other country pages is called ATEX, maybe should be renamed? --Stefan ^talk 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Could be nurtured into a presentable article. It's likely sources are available for this one and the EL offered, while not sufficient by itself, is enough to give credence this is a keep candidate. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with Professor marginalia. If someone wants to write an article about this that makes sense to people that would be great. There is Stefan a reason stated for the article to be deleted as in It's current form it is Unencyclopedic which if you check WP:AFD is why I nominated the article. I have no problem removing the request if someone honestly intends to rewrite it. It just doesn't seem to be happening. --Npnunda (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK sorry, let me clarify what I mean, your reason for deletion is 'unencyclopedic and full of jargon' as far as I understand it we discuss topics, not articles, i.e. we delete articles on Unencyclopedic topics, not topics written in an unencyclopedic style. The current ATEX directive is written in an unencyclopedic style, I agree, but as far as I know there is no policy that states it is a reason for deletion, (if I'm wrong please give a me link since I have missed that policy), the topic is I think encyclopedic and notable and should therefore not be deleted. It is not interesting and it is questionable if it will ever be much improved (maybe this AFD will improve it), I agree, but this is WIKIpedia which means we keep such content for anyone to improve and do not put a time line on when it must be improved or we will delete it. (maybe I'm wrong??? but that is what I though). If you really mean that the topic is unencyclopedic then please state how you mean that (i.e. which criteria), do you consider this topic to be a manual or what other criteria do you mean? I really do not understand. IF we really delete badly written articles this should be deleted, but as a topic I think it should stay. --Stefan ^talk 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an article with insufficient context. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Stefan I think we have some neutral ground here. Here is where I agree with you. I agree that ATEX directive is notable. I also feel the same way you do when you say hopfully someday the article will be improved. Maybe from this AFD. My problem with the current "article" being in an encyclopedia is that it reads like a work manual. WP:NOTMANUAL I actually wrote that in my comment just before the Professor wrote his. I also don't see where it talks about what ATEX Directive really is beyond the first sentence. I mean it seems to talk about things other than Apex like explosions etc. Sure, explosions are related but that's not what the APEX directive is. If an article does not talk about It's subject beyond the first sentence it should be deleted or we are misleading people who expect to read about APEX directive article. I think that fits under Wikipedia's guidelines. WP:DEL#REASON If somebody truly wants to rewrite it, It would be great. In It's current form I think it should be deleted. --Npnunda (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree that it is a problem with the article, but I still do not agree that it is a reason to delete it, just to improve it, if only the first sentence is relevant then delete all but the first sentence, do not nominate it for AFD. But never mind, I have now tried to address your issues, i.e. describe WHAT the APEX directive is and word it less like an manual and more like a encyclopedic article. You issue with jargon I can not fix, I only tried to wikify a bit more, but again that is not a reason to delete. I do not think that this falls under WP:NOTMANUAL or insufficient context. --Stefan ^talk 07:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on deletion, but definitely don't speedy delete: there's plenty of context. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Badly written articles have never been a reason for deletion, nor has lack of context. These things can be fixed and the correct action according to the deletion policy is to place approriate tags on the article. It is not even right to specify keep on condition it is improved, it should be left and editors will improve when they have time/inclination/knowledge. The subject is clearly notable, as a piece of EU legislation in itself, because of the large number of businesses it effects (flour mills for instance - this is not just petrochemicals and the military) and because the public rightly have a concern over potential explosions. I find it incredible that the debate here is not more decisive. SpinningSpark 17:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- After reading the newly written version of the article and doing a little research on the subject. Stefan you have convinced me. Let's keep the article and close the AFD. --Npnunda (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2008 (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.