Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrosmog (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electrosmog[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Electrosmog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Esoteric term redefined as a POV fork of Electromagnetic radiation and health with undue weight on WP:FRINGE theories. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (or merge) This is nothing more than a POV fork with a pejorative POV name. APL (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There might be enough sources to allow this to remain and be MEDRS compliant, but if so then only barely. Here are some such sources: [1] [2] Also, this has gotten some mainstream media coverage: [3] [4] Jinkinson talk to me 23:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep and Don't Merge: There's more than enough support that this is a real term in common use that is referenced in literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.205.112 (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC) reported at WP:SPI[reply]

    • Nobody doubts that it's a real term, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. "Electrosmog" is just a pejorative term for another concept already well covered in the encyclopedia. APL (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And what exactly is the replacement term for electrosmog? the name fits like a glove in my opinion. electromagnetic radiation and health only refers to photons and radiowaves, whether ionizing or nonionizing, and does not include magnetic field smog, or electric field smog, which is part of the definition of electrosmog being man-made fields of that are carcinogenic. For example, low frequency electric and magnetic field pollutions from high voltage power lines have been named as a possible carcinogens and increase the risk of childhood leukemia. This topic would not fit under electromagnetic radiation and health. There are really 3 fields to be considered, as is validated by the widespread commercial acceptance of trifield meters for the purpose of measuring all 3 fields of electosmog: electric, magnetic, and RF. Let me quote from the literature from my trifield meter. "Hazard Thesholds: Studies have suggest the biological effects may begin to occur near 3 milligauss of AC magnetic field; 1 Kv/m electric field, and approximately 1 mW/cm^2 of microwave RF power. long term personal exposure to such environments should therefore be minimized." These levels are more common than people realize. even the government recognizes an RF power density limit of 2 mW/cm^2 for cellphone being held against the skull to avoid potential development of health problems.
      • Deletion is a vote for sockpuppets that control multiple IP addresses that prey on valid articles for the purpose of hiding information for their own political agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.205.112 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have evidence that someone is abusing this AfD process, please provide it. Otherwise, I suggest you stick to the point of the discussion. Commenting on other users rather than the article is considered disruptive. – Wdchk (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: If sources have it as a real term, but the content is unnecessarily duplicated, it would be appropriate and useful to leave behind a redirect. – Wdchk (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* keep and Don't Merge: I don't see any evidence of duplication of material. could you point out the location where its duplicated? I think its a bad idea to merge it into Electromagnetic radiation and health because they are different topics.Pattyrobinson56 (talk)— Pattyrobinson56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reported at WP:SPI

  • Merge - this is a POV fork, but the term is used, so it is a plausible redirect. There is not that much content in the article that could be merged, and none of the existing sources seems very relevant, except possibly for the bok edited by Savage et al, but that reference is incomplete so it is difficult to verify. --bonadea contributions talk 22:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my own !vote to delete and redirect - there really isn't enough content here for merging. --bonadea contributions talk 16:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and Don't Merger. I was just looking through the history of the article and I think this article is easily fixable. Also, searching the internet leads me to beleive that Electrosmog is the most prevailant term used to describe this issue. electromagnetic radiation and health is too long to use in a sentence when talking about this subject. I vote to keep both, they are both necessary and benifical.Carapiton (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC) — Carapiton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reported at WP:SPI[reply]

    • Except that "Fixing" this article to a neutral tone would make it more or less identical to the EM and Health article. At that point, why not just have a redirect? APL (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. Honestly there just isn't enough salvageable material here to make a 'merge' worthwhile—which seems to be the consensus among the non-sockpuppeting, non-new-single-purpose editors familiar with Wikipedia policy. (Anyone who does see any useful, reliable sources that genuinely add value should identify them and note them on Talk:Electromagnetic radiation and health rather than waiting for this AfD to close.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect (as per above) or (second best) smerge. Electrosmog is a term used only by cranks, it's very likely that as with "wind farm syndrome" the adverse effect is in fact caused by the ravings of these charlatans. For yuks, the "electrosmog doctor" who writes an advertorial column in "What Doctors Don't Tell You" advises using a filter to remove transients from your mains wiring, and then using an ethernet over mains system instead of WiFi. Can you see what's wrong with this picture? Guy (Help!) 17:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/207.255.205.112#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments, I unearthed a sock filing cabinet related to this article. NativeForeigner Talk 03:10, 26 March 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electrosmog_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1144716351"