Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental health policy

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. The nominator is gently reminded to refresh their memory about WP:BEFORE. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental health policy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Reads like an essay, non-notable original research JMHamo (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as original research.~~ It was built almost entirely by two student editors taking the same class in March 2017. I am sure they had nothing but good faith, but students often think they are writing a paper. ~~I don't think the article can be salvaged as a stub, since I don't think the topic is distinct enough from similar topics to have any notability.~~ -Crossroads- (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per discussion below. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a valid topic and ordinary editing can fix the faults. Bearian (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the nomination that is junk. This is not a personal essay because there's nothing about the authors' experiences or personal opinions. It's not OR because this is not a novel topic and there are plenty of sources. The topic is clearly notable because there are entire books written about it such as Environmental Health Policy or Environmental Policy and Public Health. The usual policies apply: WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:BITE, WP:CENSOR, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as Andrew notes above, there is a wealth of verifiable sources that discuss environmental health policy. The above sources, and notable organizations including the WHO and CDC, treat the topic as a distinct subject focusing on specific human health aspects, and the subject may be treated as a notable subtopic of environmental health. While it may read like an essay, the statements are at least supported by numerous journal articles that distinguish the page from the original research and personnel essay tenets of WP:NOTESSAY. TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 21:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems that it is a topic on which a decent article can be built. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems to be more suitable than deletion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good work by students. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't believe we didn't have an article on such a clearly notable topic before 2017. Ye Gods, the environmental coverage within Wikipedia is even more dire than I thought!. This is so clearly a notable topic, and of course needs a link from the Environmental health article as well as needing a new redirect from Environmental health action plan Done. 4.4 million hits on Google and so many obvious sources that show this meets WP:GNG. I don't mean to be (too) rude, but a trout to the nominator (Crossroads1), who I genuinely urge to read WP:BEFORE lest you do further potential damage to this encyclopaedia in areas you don't understand. Oh, and a barnstar to the student editors who did a pretty fair job. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mmkay, how about a trout for Nick Moyes, for thinking I nominated this for deletion? And for scolding me, when I asked for expert attention on the article. Just because someone !votes in a way you disagree with does not mean they should be accused of being damaging. At any rate, I struck my delete above. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self-trout Yep, clumsy of me. A trout well-deserved. Please accept My sincere apologies, Crossroads1, for misreading the nomination and thinking youd made it. I am terribly sorry for that, and thank you for being so polite about my mistake (and for striking your !vote, too). Nick Moyes (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apology warmly accepted. And, I admit this particular AfD !vote of mine was not researched like it should have been. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2019 (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.