Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radiation carcinogenesis in past space missions

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. Sandstein 18:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation carcinogenesis in past space missions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX. This seems to be a personal essay about how space missions have caused radiation risks. Natg 19 (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Substantially duplicates Spaceflight radiation carcinogenesis. The creator of this article, User:Jssteil (contribs) also created Food systems on space exploration missions, which substantially duplicates Space food. The articles could be preserved in draft or user space if they are deleted as there is some content that could be merged. Roches (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose although I have to say it is quite an article but feel free to draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The initial rationale offered for deletion is not quite correct. It's neither a personal essay nor a soapbox piece, but an issue with the WP:FORUM policy as it's essentially a report on research. It still doesn't go here though. Userify could be a proper action here.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a well-written article that presents the scientific concensus. But much of it is copied from a NASA publication. I've notified Moonriddengirl (copyright issues), the other articles by that editor may also have problems. Ssscienccce (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2015 (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.