Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupational hazards with fire debris cleanup


 * 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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 09:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Occupational hazards with fire debris cleanup

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article looks to be an exercise or essay that makes self-evident observations in an effort to list substances that might be encountered at the scene of a fire. It adds no value to the encyclopedia. Note: WP:NOTGUIDE is the best match I could find in the convoluted and confusing WP deletion nomination guidance. Eric talk 15:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 25.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 15:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:NOTESSAY, any useable info from this could be moved to a new section (Fire debris) at Debris (would we then require a "redirect" to retain editing history?). Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, naughty nominator for not informing the article creator/substantial edit .... editor:), i have done so. Coolabahapple (talk)
 * Shocked indignation Mais non, ! Never naughty, ever the Boy Scout. But it might not have been apparent, as I had to do some steps manually after I either ran into a glitch or made some error starting the nomination. Haven't done one of these in a while, and the "guidance" is a mind-numbing morass of circular links and redundant clutter. Eric talk 13:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * me bad, please trout me ps. agree that afd guidelines are a bit of a swamp (and not necessarily like this funny one). Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article follows the correct format and content for occupational hazards topics, for which a listing of hazards (including hazardous substances) is vital. It is not formatted as an essay, nor is the content self-evident.  The sources are reliable and are specific to fire debris cleanup.  There also isn't even a suitable existing article that this could be merged into. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The sourcing is not the issue; the topic is. This is not encyclopedia material. And is most certainly not "vital": Anyone whose occupation it is to spend time at fire sites will already have been educated on the matter, and will not be looking to Wikipedia for guidance. We might just as well have an article conjecturing on hazards a diver might encounter working underwater (every potentially dangerous item that has ever become submerged, every potentially dangerous underwater creature, etc...), or an article on all the bad things that might happen to us on a on a walk down the street. Eric talk 04:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an odd example, given that we actually have four whole articles on diving hazards. It's not true fire workers will not be looking to Wikipedia for guidance: they may want to supplement information given by their employer, they may have been given insufficient or no information by their employer (especially if they are in countries that have lax or no regulation), or they may be a volunteer or disaster survivor. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Four articles? That is downright depressing. Eric talk 12:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Technically only one of them is about the full range of diving hazards in general. Diving is a hazardous activity, mess up the wrong way and you die. That is before taking account of any exposure to site specific, water condition, and job-specific hazards. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 15:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or TNT. The problem here is WP:NOTADVICE.  Looking a bit deeper, I see that User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) is a Wikipedian in Residence at NIOSH.  In general this is a good thing, and looking over his editing history, it looks like he's made lots of valuable contributions, in line with his WIR role.  But, the tone of this particular article just doesn't fit with our mission as an encyclopedia.  It's giving advice, and mostly referenced to WP:PRIMARY sources.  Perhaps it could be rewritten from scratch, but in it's current form, it's not appropriate for mainspace.  I wouldn't be opposed to moving this to draft or userspace where the rewriting could happen.  And, for what it's worth, I looked at List of diving hazards and precautions, which was mentioned above at WP:OTHERSTUFF.  It suffers from the same problem.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that public health articles like this do need to walk a line of heeding WP:NOTADVICE. The usual approach is to factually state what the hazards and hazard controls are, and avoid wordings that tell people what they "should" do or being formatted as a how-to.  The article does conform to this.  Can you tell me in what manner you see this article as giving advice?  Also, almost all of the sources are secondary sources; under WP:MEDRS guidance from public health agencies are reliable secondary sources.  I agree that the article content could continue be improved, but from my experience I'd say it's a very reasonable start to an article.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm a little hesitant to point out specific passages that violate WP:NOTADVICE because I don't want to give the impression that if those specific passages were fixed, the rest would be OK. With that in mind, however, here's a few of the most obvious.
 * Hmmm, I was going to point out that the first paragraph contained a "should" (the prototypical advice word), but I see that was changed just earlier this morning.
 * The Hazard controls section seems particularly problematic. The article is ostensibly about hazards, but this whole section is about what you should do to avoid being injured by those hazards.  Even though it doesn't explicitly say, should, it obviously implies that.  What you should wear.  How you should safe the electrical system.  How you should ventilate the space. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also prefer to see a more neutral title. Occupational hazards with fire debris cleanup is not incorrect, but Fire cleanup hazards would be better.  For one thing, these hazards apply to everybody.  Obviously, the people most likely to be exposed to these hazards are fire fighters, police, demolition workers, etc.  But the title implies a certain WP:POV, which is, How can people with these occupations protect themselves from the hazards associated with their jobs.  That is, of course, NIOSH's mission.  But, a more WP:NPOV view (which is an encyclopedia's mission) would be, Describe the hazards associated with post-fire cleanup.  It's the difference between describing something vs giving advice about how to protect yourself from it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A topic does not have to be neutral. There are valid article topics on controversies. This is not even that. The title is not biased, it is specific. The article content must be neutral. In normal life untrained personnel should not be exposing themselves to the kind of hazards this article should be discussing, that work should be left to professionals with the right equipment and training, because it is hazardous to health and safety. In a disaster where ordinary people do their bit for the community, it would be prudent to read up on what this article should contain before deciding to rush in. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 15:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A description of hazards isn't really complete without a description of how to control them. If this article were more filled out, it would describe the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of each hazard control, but that's more of an issue for a GA review; for a start-class article like this, just stating what they are based on reliable sources is more or less what's expected.  You have an apt point about the title, as "Occupational hazards of..." versus "Health and safety hazard of..." versus "Hazards of..." imply slightly different scopes.  But that's an easy change to make.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A topic does not have to be neutral. There are valid article topics on controversies. This is not even that. The title is not biased, it is specific. The article content must be neutral. In normal life untrained personnel should not be exposing themselves to the kind of hazards this article should be discussing, that work should be left to professionals with the right equipment and training, because it is hazardous to health and safety. In a disaster where ordinary people do their bit for the community, it would be prudent to read up on what this article should contain before deciding to rush in. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 15:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A description of hazards isn't really complete without a description of how to control them. If this article were more filled out, it would describe the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of each hazard control, but that's more of an issue for a GA review; for a start-class article like this, just stating what they are based on reliable sources is more or less what's expected.  You have an apt point about the title, as "Occupational hazards of..." versus "Health and safety hazard of..." versus "Hazards of..." imply slightly different scopes.  But that's an easy change to make.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTADVICE, as per RoySmith. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete WP:NOTADVICE, as per RoySmith--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is not formatted as an essay, and does not give advice. It may not be currently perfect but there are hazards specific to fire cleanup which can be discussed encyclopedically. The word should in the lead refers to a legal and ethical obligation, not advice. See the article talk page for more details. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 15:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Nearly all of this article reads as a factual encyclopedia article to me. I'm not seeing an essay or how-to here. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 04:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SIGCOV. I don't see what's wrong with it. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, The article has been changed significantly since listing. This may be reflected in more recent input to this discussion. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 06:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been greatly improved since it was nominated. It has many reliable sources, and doesn't read like a how-to guide at all. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - The person above me is correct. The article has gone through the Heymann Standard, as it has been updated, cleaned, and adequately sourced. 🌺Kori🌺  - ( @ ) 01:34, 14 April 2020 (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.