Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupational Health in Tanzania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Article obviously needs a lot of TLC. Each participant basically comes up with a different solution, so closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against a possible redirect (after appropriate discussion on the article's talk page) or possible relisting if no improvement is forthcoming in the next few months. Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Occupational Health in Tanzania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a paper of some sort, so it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I think the topic is notable, but with the way it is presented in the article, it might be easier to just start over. My earlier PROD was removed by the article creator without explanation. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Occupational safety and health? Remove all of the general content (e.g., all of the Introduction, "every individual worker needs good working environment that is safe and free from any kind of life - threatening hazards") and tighten the language and it should reasonably fit. It has relevant content to expand the other page's worldwide perspective and avoid losing the good stuff entirely. (I could probably take a pass at this but not until the weekend earliest.) Alaynestone (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 02:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2015 (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.