Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Health Security Strategy

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 delete. ✗plicit 03:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Health Security Strategy[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)

(This is not about the text, which is likely PD as a US Government work product.) This is about the fact when searching for this strategy paired with its agency to avoid the COVID clutter, there are no non-primary sources so nothing on which to build an article. This talks about an RFI, but there's nothing about the strategy. If it were mentioned at United States Department of Health and Human Services it could be redirected there, but I'm not sure it's DUE, nor is there anything sourced to merge. Suggestions? Star Mississippi 02:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is certainly enough primary sourcing to write an article, there is no demonstrated notability in secondary sources. I hate to delete such a long and detailed piece, but it really doesn’t seem to meet our standards. Toadspike (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is interesting - the AfD, not the article. The first criterion that comes to mind is WP:ROUTINE in that this is regular government business in implementing a public health strategy. The second one that comes to mind is WP:NOTCRYSTAL as the article lays out plans for implementation. Perhaps it is both, with ROUTINE being stronger. I am unable to find secondary coverage of this, likely because it is uncontroversial and routine business. It's also pretty obtuse (AfD is not cleanup, yes), and doesn't impart much nuance other than 'it exists and here is the strategy.' I am also unable to find a suitable merge target as there is no information out there about this in secondary sources in which perspective can be provided. Hence my !vote. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2022 (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.