Deletion of List of commonly available chemicals (2nd nomination)

Comment: WP:NOTCLEANUP This list-based article has many blue links and so satisfies  as a valid standalone list
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SAL)

Comment: This list-based article has almost all notable entries with their own article and so satisfies  as a valid standalone list; non-notable entries can be deleted. It is a nagivation aid with useful summaries and is valid as such, per . The inclusion criteria are not precise, but are reasonable in the sense that editors can discuss marginal entries and come to consensus on whether to include them. We have plenty of lists with imprecise inclusion criteria, e.g., List of philosophical concepts, and our category system is full of them. Hence "imprecise inclusion criteria" criticsm by itself is not a compelling reason for deletion. A well-formed list article with no major problems suggests keep. --&#123;&#123;u&#124
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SAL||WP:CLN)

Comment: per . According to this article formic acid can be found at a 5% concentration in "Clorox Dual Action Toilet Bowl Cleanser". Should we list every chemical found in every shampoo? What about the common types of synthetic rubber found in automotive tires, which are very common. Literally everything is made of chemicals, and therefore everything commonly available is full of commonly available chemicals
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: it's |original research, and makes no sense as a list because "commonly available" is not an objective criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: per Devonian Wombat.  The fact that only a couple of the entries are sourced means that nearly the entire content of this list is .  And, as mentioned several times above, "commonly available" is an ill-defined, non-objective criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: as . "Commonly available" is ''not'' an obvious criterion. Far from it. Commonly available to whom? The average First World individual? Because many of these are not readily obtainable for many Third Worlders. (It also contains the contradictory "difficult to find" barium carbonate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Initially appears arbitrary, no clear inclusion criteria. The source http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/ Household Products Database link isn't working for some reason, but https://healthdata.gov/dataset/household-products-database its intro page says "This database links over 4,000 consumer brands to health effects from Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) provided by the manufacturers and allows scientists and consumers to research products based on chemical ingredients." I'm confused why the definition of "commonly available" should be defined as "sold in a household consumer product" and why Wikipedia should be a  of this government database. Being just a copy-paste would explain the stupid punctuation like ''General; "aluminium foil"'' and the notes like ''Must be kept sealed for stability.'' If kept it should be renamed List of household chemicals or something
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMIRROR)