Talk:European chemical Substances Information System

unexplained tags
Please explain tags. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggg phew (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no independent, reliable sources showing that this meets WP:GNG. Accordingly, the AfD (see template above) was closed as "week keep" and notability remains to be shown. Please don't remove the notability tag again without addressing the problem first. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is ridiculous. ESIS is the database for regulatory information on chemical substances, at least in the European Union. --Leyo 18:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case there will be plenty sources that can easily be added to the article, so that a tag is not necessary any more. I look forward to seeing those sources. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources in the article are sufficient. It is an official database. --Leyo 18:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite, Guillaume2303, this is "how it works"; Usually a user (e.g. you) comes along, sees an article that maybe confuses him, and sticks an ugly notice on it. Note he doesn't actually do anything to improve the article, just does a drive-by shooting with Bugsy Malone ammunition, leaving a dirty mess. Someone then comes and cleans up the mess, for which there is no explanation. The user then comes back, insulted that anyone could think differently to him, and squirts more egg custard around, complaining not about the content of the article but the behaviour of the cleaner. Despite acting entirely alone, said user then claims to be acting on behalf of a "community" of others, and demands that his unitary stance be readopted. Usually then he runs off to WP:AN/I and complains of vandalism. Please stop being this inane user.

But now we have an explanation, and it's a load of nonsense. It was deleted, so your aim is to stick it in a sort of article purgatory where it is neither legitimate nor deleted, until when? What criteria do you have? The subject of the article isn't going to be change, which is notable or not. So it stays there forever. Great. (And btw on what authority is a different matter to play St Peter)? So, you don't add the tag until you've come up with a better explanation, capiche? Ggg phew (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, this is how things are here. First of all, we assume good faith. Next, if you care to look at the previous AFD (linked in the banner above), you see that even though several editors argued for keeping this article, no independent reliable sources are currently present in the article (the one source added during the AfD is about REACH). The closing admin clearly stated that this was only a "weak" keep (and that is the first time I have ever seen someone use a qualifier like that in an AfD closure). So we have an article that is insufficiently sourced to show notability. What now is the best way to proceed? We can let it stand like this and then after a suitable amount of time has passed, take it to AfD again. Or we can tag it (which is only that, a tag) and alert readers that something needs to be improved here. I think the latter course is the best one. As for your rant above, if you would care to look a bit closer, you'll see that I proposed this for AfD earlier (after I failed to find sources), so I'm not a drive-by shooter. Neither are you "cleaning up", because removing a tag without addressing the underlying problem is just an attempt to hide that problem and by doing so reducing the probability that someone will actually take care of it (I fully well realize that the fact that I couldn't find sources does not necessarily mean that someone else can't do this). As a "notability" tag apparently makes you very angry, I have replaced it with a "refimprove" tag, I hope that is acceptable as a compromise. Finally, I didn't claim to act on behalf of any community, nor am I running off to AN/I. And I would really like it if the next time you post here you try to be civil. Just because you don't agree with me is no justification for the kind of rant you posted (which could easily be interpreted as a personal attack). Capiche? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please stop acting unilaterally and address the points regarding content and resolution rather than issuing infantile personal attacks. Thanks for your understanding. Ggg phew (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not the one engaging in personal attacks here (I cite: "inane", "infantile", "drive-by shooting", "Bugsy Malone", etc). Please stop edit warring about the addition of perfectly legitimate maintenance tags. If you don't like the tags, all you need do is add a few of those myriad sources that you seem to know about, rather than wasting our time here with "infantile" discussions. Please also note that within a space of 24 hours, you have now reverted me three times. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I see the need to repeat myself again. Stop whingeing about personal attacks and address the issues. Ggg phew (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am addressing the issues. There are currently 2 references. One is not independent, the other is not really about ESIS but about REACH. This does not meet WP:GNG, which clearly requires major coverage in multiple sources. I don't find other references to add. Hence, notability is in doubt and more sources are needed. If you can do better than me and can find good sources to add, please do so. If not, stop whining about a tag that requests exactly these very improvements. I think this adequately addresses the issues. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2? There are 5 external links. If we deduct the ESIS website and one occurrence of echemportal.org, we still end with 3. --Leyo 13:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And which ones of those actually show any notability as required by WP:GNG? Echemportal, REACH, and ESIS are all interconnected, so these are not independent sources. We still are only left with the THE link to an article about REACH. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * timeshighereducation.co.uk, where ESIS is mentioned? There is a difference between companies or related products or “products” by the European Union, where (among others) is no financial interest in an advertisement by a Wikipedia article. Further more, why shouldn't OECD be independent from EU? --Leyo 15:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The operational word here is, indeed, "mentioned". THE only gives an in-passing mention of ESIS in an article about REACH. That is not "significant coverage". I don't understand why you talk about an advertisement here, this article is not written in a promotional way. Echemportal clearly states on its homepage that it is a collaboration between (among others) the OECD and EU. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Any further comments? If not, I'll put back the notability tag. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * “(Significant) coverage” is not really a citeria for such a topic. --Leyo 14:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that some topics are exempt of a fundamental policy like WP:GNG? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)