Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European chemical Substances Information System


 * 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   weak keep. I know we usually don't include modifiers in the closing determination but it seemed in order in this case as even those arguing to keep don't have much good to say about this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

European chemical Substances Information System

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Are you acting like a bot or did you actually read the article? Did you see that I added links to two webpages about ESIS? One is on the website of ECHA, the other on a website hosted by OECD. Futher more, there is a difference in the need for independent sources between e.g. an article about a company and an institution of an authority. --Leyo 07:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that you added two external links. One is a list of databases and the other is another listing ("glossary") on another EU website. How does this meet WP:GNG? --Crusio (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The first link might be replaced by the link to the actual entry. --Leyo 08:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Sigh. Chris (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I think the article has a lot of jargon and thus not a lot of people would understand what the article is trying to say, in which case I don't see any merits in its being included. Please provide me with at four understandable sources so if you'd like me to consider changing my stance. Sp33dyphil © • © 10:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The lists do not count. Where did you spot jargon in the other parts? --Leyo 12:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Added an inline reference. It also gets 66 hits in Google Books and 583  citations in Scholar.  Francis Bond (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The THE article is about REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) and only mentions this system in passing at the very end. --Crusio (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, weakly. Apparently not a research project.  The article I read was reasonably intelligible and neutral, and there is at least one reliable source. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was a research project :-) And the reliable source only mentions this in passing, so I don't think GNG has been met. Of course, as an alternative to deletion, the minimal information that is in this article could be merged to the article on REACH or European Chemical Bureau. --Crusio (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The ECB as is does not exist anymore. Just as a remark, the ESIS article is linked more than 800 times in de.wikipedia. --Leyo 16:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep It is poorly written, and poorly sourced, but there is salvagebility here, a quick google search reveals dozens of pages on this company, some of which may be suitable for references, and after a bit of rewriting this could be a proper article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. My first reason for weak keep is that there is at least one reliable source, so WP:GNG is not a ground for deletion. My second rationale for keep is that there are no arguments presented for the deletion. The same short copy-pasted text for each AfD and PROD nominations (already more than hundred, I think) does not convince that the nominator has really and deeply checked the article and available sources, and concerned other possible actions. Deletion should be the last available action if the article really can't be salvaged, not something for starting the improvement process. Beagel (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG specifically requires multiple sources with substantial coverage. This one is only an in-passing mention in an article about another subject. For what it is worth, the nom was not copy-pasted. But with so many Euro-cruft articles, it's difficult to remain original if they all suffer from the same problems: "non-notable, no independent sources". --Crusio (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not even worth discussing if this database is notable or not. For instance, it is the principal database for classification and labeling of chemical substances. In addition, it is mentioned in many books. There are surely less notable databases in Category:Chemical databases. --Leyo 21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you just used the worn out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. --Crusio (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But you can believe me that I do not take seriously someone who uses terms like “Euro-cruft”. --Leyo 06:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As an admin, you can see the deleted articles that Beagel is talking about. Go have a look and tell me that stuff is not "cruft". At least this article is not written in an incomprehensible way full of unrealistic puffery. ("Eurocruft" was directed to the other articles Beagel was talking about; even though I don't think this article is notable, I'm not saying this one is Eurocruft). --Crusio (talk) 07:50, 25 October 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.