495:
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.
518:
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".
289:
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.
426:
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
467:
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. –
154:
606:"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
341:
88:
83:
92:
75:
148:
533:
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
48:. 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.
115:
79:
384:
362:
71:
63:
226:
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
169:
136:
409:, weakly. Apparently not a research project. The article I read was reasonably intelligible and neutral, and there is at least one reliable source. -
619:
581:
571:
545:
528:
505:
475:
453:
440:
417:
398:
376:
353:
331:
312:
303:
280:
252:
239:
221:
217:. 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. --
198:
57:
209:
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
130:
126:
496:
Deletion should be the last available action if the article really can't be salvaged, not something for starting the improvement process.
245:
176:
17:
534:
299:
142:
559:
643:
36:
538:
602:
As an admin, you can see the deleted articles that Beagel is talking about. Go have a look and tell me that stuff is
642:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
472:
428:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
295:
53:
469:
162:
322:
Added an inline reference. It also gets 66 hits in Google Books and 583 citations in
Scholar.
276:
577:
But you can believe me that I do not take seriously someone who uses terms like “Euro-cruft”. --
394:
372:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
615:
567:
524:
501:
436:
414:
349:
327:
235:
194:
488:
227:
186:
291:
49:
449:. Just as a remark, the ESIS article is linked more than 800 times in de.wikipedia. --
272:
390:
368:
109:
611:
563:
520:
497:
432:
410:
345:
323:
231:
190:
446:
578:
542:
450:
309:
249:
218:
308:
The lists do not count. Where did you spot jargon in the other parts? --
342:
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and
Restriction of Chemicals
636:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
214:
210:
344:) and only mentions this system in passing at the very end. --
244:
The first link might be replaced by the link to the actual
105:
101:
97:
491:
is not a ground for deletion. My second rationale for
161:
514:WP:GNG specifically requires multiple sources with
175:
487:is that there is at least one reliable source, so
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
646:). No further edits should be made to this page.
385:list of Technology-related deletion discussions
72:European chemical Substances Information System
64:European chemical Substances Information System
537:. There are surely less notable databases in
8:
383:Note: This debate has been included in the
361:Note: This debate has been included in the
558:I can't believe you just used the worn out
363:list of Europe-related deletion discussions
382:
360:
185:No independent sources, does not meet
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
415:killing the human spirit since 2003!
213:, the other on a website hosted by
24:
340:The THE article is about REACH (
1:
620:07:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
582:06:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
572:03:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
546:21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
529:20:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
506:20:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
476:18:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
454:16:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
441:15:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
418:15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
399:13:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
377:13:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
354:13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
332:13:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
313:12:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
304:10:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
281:08:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
253:08:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
240:07:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
222:07:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
199:07:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
58:01:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
539:Category:Chemical databases
663:
639:Please do not modify it.
429:European Chemical Bureau
32:Please do not modify it.
483:. My first reason for
447:does not exist anymore
560:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
44:The result was
622:
610:is Eurocruft). --
599:
596:
593:
590:
584:
401:
388:
379:
366:
654:
641:
601:
598:
595:
592:
589:
576:
389:
367:
180:
179:
165:
113:
95:
34:
662:
661:
657:
656:
655:
653:
652:
651:
650:
644:deletion review
637:
411:Smerdis of Tlön
122:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
660:
658:
649:
648:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
588:
587:
586:
585:
551:
550:
549:
548:
509:
508:
478:
470:Phoenix B 1of3
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
445:The ECB as is
421:
420:
403:
402:
380:
358:
357:
356:
335:
334:
317:
316:
315:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
183:
182:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
659:
647:
645:
640:
634:
633:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
600:
597:
594:
591:
583:
580:
575:
574:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
547:
544:
540:
536:
532:
531:
530:
526:
522:
517:
513:
512:
511:
510:
507:
503:
499:
494:
490:
486:
482:
479:
477:
474:
471:
466:
463:
462:
455:
452:
448:
444:
443:
442:
438:
434:
430:
425:
424:
423:
422:
419:
416:
412:
408:
405:
404:
400:
396:
392:
386:
381:
378:
374:
370:
364:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
338:
337:
336:
333:
329:
325:
321:
318:
314:
311:
307:
306:
305:
302:
301:
297:
293:
288:
285:
284:
283:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
254:
251:
247:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
224:
223:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
196:
192:
188:
178:
174:
171:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
128:
125:
124:Find sources:
120:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
638:
635:
607:
603:
562:argument. --
515:
492:
484:
480:
464:
406:
324:Francis Bond
319:
294:
286:
268:
264:
263:
206:
184:
172:
166:
158:
151:
145:
139:
133:
123:
45:
43:
31:
28:
516:substantial
287:Weak delete
149:free images
535:many books
292:Sp33dyphil
50:Beeblebrox
485:weak keep
481:Weak keep
465:Weak Keep
391:• Gene93k
369:• Gene93k
46:weak keep
608:this one
116:View log
155:WPÂ refs
143:scholar
89:protect
84:history
612:Crusio
564:Crusio
521:Crusio
498:Beagel
489:WP:GNG
473:(talk)
433:Crusio
346:Crusio
232:Crusio
228:WP:GNG
191:Crusio
187:WP:GNG
127:Google
93:delete
273:Chris
246:entry
170:JSTOR
131:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
616:talk
579:Leyo
568:talk
543:Leyo
541:. --
525:talk
502:talk
493:keep
451:Leyo
437:talk
431:. --
407:Keep
395:talk
373:talk
350:talk
328:talk
320:Keep
310:Leyo
277:talk
269:Sigh
265:Keep
250:Leyo
248:. --
236:talk
230:? --
219:Leyo
215:OECD
211:ECHA
207:Keep
195:talk
163:FENS
137:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
604:not
177:TWL
114:– (
618:)
570:)
527:)
519:--
504:)
439:)
413:-
397:)
387:.
375:)
365:.
352:)
330:)
298:•
279:)
271:.
267:.
238:)
197:)
189:.
157:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
614:(
566:(
523:(
500:(
435:(
393:(
371:(
348:(
326:(
300:©
296:©
275:(
234:(
193:(
181:)
173:·
167:·
159:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
134:·
129:(
121:(
118:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.