Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health implications of environmental 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 delete. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Health implications of environmental policy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another student essay. Almost everything in this article is either:
 * available in the article about the piece of legislation in question
 * available in the article about the environmental problem being described
 * available in Environmental law or one of its sub-articles
 * POV pushing
 * speculation about Trump's future actions

This does not need its own "aggregation" article. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * delete per nom. Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * redirect to Environmental health or Environmental Law Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as duplicative (nothing that I see to merge, as this is a hodgepodge of content already covered elsewhere). Alternatively, redirect to environmental health or Environmental policy. Pretty clear. (Side note: despite the broad title the content only deals with the United States). Neutralitytalk 03:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a fork from Environmental policy of the United States and/or Merge all new material into Environmental policy of the United States and particularly Environmental policy of the United States.  Above it is claimed that all of the material is easy to find in disparate subjects like environmental health, Environmental policy, environmental law, environmental protection, etc., but I do not see the work that the student has done when I go to those subjects:  This student is writing on the relationship between the policy and the impact, which is different than simply describing the policy (current, past and proposed), describing the technical procedures required to follow the policy (and what that might cost), or simply describing the health impacts alone as in environmental health.   If the material exists it is in scattered about in numerous disparate places and not particularly well organized to make it easy to find.   The closest is Environmental policy of the United States which is very weak in comparison to the student's work.   I would hope the student(s) can help us improve the organization and structure of our environmental articles so the relevant material on this subject is easy to find.  As an example of how poor some of our existing articles are on this subject compared to the student's work, one need only look at Environmental_protection (under the strange category "Social Democracy").  Or look at Environmental_health and explain how one is brought to the right topics summarizing impacts and policy related to "Toxic chemical exposure whether in consumer products, housing, workplaces, air, water or soil"  or look at United_States_environmental_law.  This article has material assembled together we do not have.  Keep and improve.  --David Tornheim (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Original parts of article appear to be mostly speculative. Appropriate for Wikiversity, not Wikipedia. PriceDL (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as fundamentally unsuited to being a Wikipedia article, largely per nom. Some of the content is good, but those parts are already covered in other articles mentioned above. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:33, 21 April 2017 (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.