Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LOLI Database

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 keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOLI Database

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable; unsourced except to primary source Orange Mike | Talk 00:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is described as "the largest and most comprehensive regulatory database available"[1]. I think it is very notable, just fairly obscure to the non-chemists, and not very detailed and referenced. --Iantresman (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important to chemists and environmentalists as a source of material safety data sheets. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, importance in chemistry field. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. One ten-year-old review for a claimed-current system and a dead link to a website don't cut the mustard. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NRVE. All claims of WP:Notability must be verifiable as 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth'. Obviously if such evidence is put forward then I'm happy to change my verdict. -Rushyo ^Talk 14:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep as notability well-established by Cullen328's recent revisions. -Rushyo ^Talk 01:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Iantresman's keep has a press release. SL93 (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: I have been convinced. SL93 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The company that maintains this database also has an article, ChemADVISOR, Inc., which is completely unreferenced. Merging and redirecting these two into one would be a good place to start. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the article and added several new references. Disregard the press release linked above - it is not necessary to see that this topic is notable. I've corrected the dead external link. I am a bit mystified by Stuarteates comment about a "ten year old review". I assume the reference is to the 1991 review in Journal of the American Chemical Society, published over 20 years ago. This is a detailed, in-depth review of a chemical safety database which is used worldwide and developed using data from every relevant regulatory agency in every significant country. Please remember that notability is not temporary, and 20 year old coverage in a respected scientific journal founded in 1879 is just as useful for establishing notability as an article in the current issue. I wonder whether those who are recommending deletion took a look at this reference? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One review doesn't imply notability to me, really. It implies someone took the time to look at it - but that can happen with anything. I can find reviews for many of the things I've created (software, articles, etc) in well-respected literature and I don't feel any one of them meets our notability requirements. Regardless, I've U-turned on my stance in light of the evidence presented. -Rushyo ^Talk 01:35, 5 December 2011 (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.