Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fallout: The Health Impact of 9/11 (2nd nomination)


 * 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   redirect to Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks .  MBisanz  talk 04:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fallout: The Health Impact of 9/11
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The previous deletion debate was closed as delete, but has been relisted per the discussion at Deletion review/Log/2009 February 1. I have no opinion on the matter. Aervanath (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I support the decision to relist a prematurely-closed prod, see WP:PI, but I agree with the consensus from the previous nom. It gets a trivial number of ghits (237), none of which appear at a glance to satisfy the applicable notability guideline (viz. WP:NF). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the past consensus and have little faith in the easy Google hits. WP:NF and WP:V need more than what is offered. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk»07:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, little more to say about it than it exists without getting into original research. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous discussion and per Stifle. JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * question Are there really no sources for a BBC documentary? Hs nobody actually noticed it? I see a few tv schedules listing it, but it's odd to to see more. DGG (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks. It looks like a suitable source for that article.  Even if redundant or not worth even a mention, keeping the redirect is appropriate.  No content to justify haveing its own article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per SmokeyJoe, though I found at least one article in The West Australian that appears to significantly cover this documentary (though I don't have access to the article, I can confirm through Google News Archive that there is at least more than a couple sentences here). The BBC itself also covered it here, but this article doesn't give the actual name of the documentary. If someone could find another independent reliable source with non-trivial coverage, this would be a keeper. DHowell (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, weak keep based on significant coverage in an article in this 2006 newsletter from the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH). DHowell (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks and merge what little information there is into that article . (actually, it's already mentioned, so strike that) --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 03:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.