Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Watras


 * 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   merge to Health effects of radon. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Watras

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Person who falls under WP:ONEEVENT as someone who was involved in the discovery of radon exposure. While radon exposure is certainly notable, this person doesn't seem to meet that criteria at all. PROD removed, IP is upset about the previous redirect to the radon exposure page. We should just delete this article and be done with it. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment You asked me for input, so: Really don't know enough to know if it should be deleted or not, but that's kind of the point. Right now (or immediately prior to this CfD) the article redirected to a peripherally related page that didn't cover the subject. The page didn't mention "Stanley Watras", and the incident he was reportedly involved in is only covered by the page in the most vague and non-specific language (not even the location and name of the Nuclear plant is mentioned, only the year and country.) There are pages that link to Stanley Watras, notably Radon. That was my concern. If those links become red links, then at least users of Wikipedia will understand that Wikipedia does not contain information on the person in question. If the incident that Watras was involved in is notable enough for there to be links to his name across Wikipedia, then it would make sense to cover the incident in more detail, in a short but appropriate article. I suspect that was the logic behind writing the article in the first place. Either way, if such an article were to be written, and Stanley Watras was to be a redirect to it, the name "Stanley Watras" should appear in the article, or else the redirect should not exist. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Health effects of radon. Inniverse (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Health effects of radon, good case study to have there. Claritas § 17:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Health effects of radon, possibly in the Health policies on public exposure section, either near the beginning of the first subsection or as its own subsection. I originally created that article, but now I realize that it was probably pointless because there's so little to say about him.   some page  --  Turtle  Boy  0  05:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess what? Merge and redirect etc etc. In fact, I've already edited Health effects of radon to describe the "Watras incident" (by which name this happening is frequently referred to) at the level of detail I think appropriate.  This article should redict to Health effects of radon.  You'll note in my version of Health eff. of Rn I just refer to "Watras incident" and never mention "Stanley" -- I don't think full name is desireable or necessary, esp. since one assertion is, in effect, that Mr. W and his family have a hugely increased lifetime risk of cancer, which I don't think needs to be broadcast (and it's not even true, apparently -- they hadn't lived in the house long before the problem was detected and they got the h--- out).  Despite what the excitable  Mr. 66.149.58.8 *(see Talk:Stanley Watras) says above, a reader who comes looking for "Stanley Watras" and is redirected to "Health effects" will easily infer that the text on "Watras incident" is what he's looking for.  In addition, much of the info given in the current article here, on Watras conflicts with the sources, or are just silly e.g. "first time evidence of the danger of radon exposure was found" (absurd), "most" homeowners became concerned about radon (um... really? most?).
 * 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.