Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental product declaration


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Environmental product declaration

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable "system". Dennis Brown (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply I've found a credible source that refers to the system. I believe it notable. Orentago (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please share a link or three. I'm never afraid to drop a nom when my rationale is demonstrated to be mistaken.  All I can do is use good faith when making the initial nom.  Dennis Brown (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you are talking about the one reference in the article, which is actually a single entry that uses the word, copied from google books.  The actual book, Life cycle assessment: principles, practice, and prospects By Ralph Horne, Karli Verghese, Tim Grant uses that book as a reference, but using a book that uses a book for a reference is pretty weak, and technically invalid if someone hasn't actually read the original book.  Just because it uses the phrase in one sentence of a book that no one has actually read or even used as a real reference, doesn't make it a valid reference.  Sorry.  The only place in that one book that uses the phrase "Environmental product declaration" is that bibliography, the actual book that references it does NOT use that phrase, even once.  That reference should actually be removed.  I left it for now, tagged as failing verification.  Would hope you would remove since you put it there, in good faith.  Dennis Brown (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually read the original article and there's substantial mention of the subject in it. The whole article is about it. I'm not sure what more you want. See: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.453/abstract Orentago (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact if you google the title of the article the first hit is a link to the abstract. Orentago (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This book you can even read online (as not everyone has access to academic papers): Ecodesign implementation: a systematic guidance on integrating environmental considerations into product development. Orentago (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. We have a number of articles that this might be redundant to, including environmental impact assessment and environmental impact itself.  The idea of som,e kind of consumer environmental impact statement may well be a notable idea; individual proposals for formats probably are not yet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Keep There's plenty of bureaucracy for this, including a range of ISO standards. Warden (talk) 14:10, 1 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, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:12, 9 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.