Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Building biology


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Building biology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable fringe belief, almost entirely referenced with primary sources. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Apparently somewhat fringey but also obviously notable enough for our purposes - multiple organizations, a number of books and peer-reviewed articles , and the term comes up repeatedly in the context of sick building syndrome (e.g. ). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's possible that the term "building biology" is used in legitimate academic contexts and was co-opted by the group originating in Germany associated with alternative medicine. The current article seems to be a mix of both. Building biology and Baubiologie should thus be clearly distinguished from one another. Pink pipes (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Moving to Baubiologie may be sensible to avoid conflation. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a German concept and so the language may sound a bit odd in English but that's not a reason to delete. Apart from the good points made by Elmidae, notice that the topic has articles in seven other Wikipedias and so seems well-established. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's just as fringe in Germany as it is in other parts of the world: The Berufsverband Deutscher Baubiologen VDB e.V. website currently warns of 5G radiation. My suspicion is that the articles in other languages were created or at least edited by "Building biologists" to fake legitimacy. For example: [|Martin Kempf], the creator of the french article, is the owner of the Institut français de baubiologie et d'écologie. Not necessarily a reason to delete, but something to be aware of. Pink pipes (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC) — Pink pipes (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That website also features asbestos, radon and mould, which are well-established as real building hazards. If they are making a risk analysis of the new technology of 5G too, then this seems prudent.  This is not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Any article founded on the premise that multiple chemical sensitivity is real, has irredeemable problems. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really an argument, as long as there is sufficent coverage - unless you want to raze List of topics characterized as pseudoscience in the some washup... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We have an article about multiple chemical sensitivity and so we can have an article about this context too. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is not deleted, the article must be completely rewritten or moved to Baubiologie to reflect what it is: A set of beliefs with strong ties to alternative medicine. See also my reply to Elmidae. Pink pipes (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do we have good quality secondary sources for this? I'm seeing the Institute of Building Biology (which I believe is a primary source), but not much else. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT. There is nothing usable in the current article; it relies entirely on primary sources and is written in a non-neutral tone presenting all aspects of the movement in a positive light, even the criticism section is written as a criticism of people who criticise the movement! The articles in other languages don't look any better: the French article is a translation of the English one and has only primary sources; the dutch article is sourced entirely to www.baubiologie.de; and the German article is sourced to some fringy looking books and websites, including one on how electricity and radiation cause stress, again no secondary sources. If enough high quality secondary sources can be found there should be an article under the movement's German name - 'baubiologie' but it needs to be written in a neutral manner: i.e. it is an architectural movement that incorporates some aspects of science and some aspects of pseudoscience. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I decided to do some digging into Pink pipes's suggestion that the article was written by or substantially edited by building biologists, and I've come to the conclusion that is indeed the case. Looking just at the edits that were allowed to stay in the article in some form we have edits by users who identify themselves as building biologists, edits by a SPA who's username is identical to that of an Australian building biology firm , edits by Ecolibria (a quack building inspection company that specialises in air-quality testing and EM-radiation measurements) , a user called BBaustralia , and an edit by a user alexgreig  adding informtion on himself as head of the new Zealand building biology institute. There are also a number of single purpose accounts that exclusively edited the article to add promotional content e.g. , . For an article with under 200 total edits the amount of COI and POV pushing editing is remarkable 192.76.8.82 (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - While the concept might be notable, the article is completely written from a fringe point of view based on primary sources. There's nothing usable to keep. What would be necessary to write an article about this is a reliable source describing baubiologie from a mainstream point of view. None have appeared so far. Tercer (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per policy based comments by JzG, and Andrew Davidson. Is this Heilpraktikers trying to justify their nonsense? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The article meets the general notability guidelines Notability. Lost in translation.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The source you added here to show notability is a self published book that claims that there is a connection between human health and 'Cosmic Energy, Chakras, Aura and Vastu'. To improve the article we need to find some high quality secondary coverage from reliable sources, which is what the article currently lacks. Since the article is currently sourced entirely to similar primary and fringe material I think it is best to start again, per WP:TNT. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: The article is fringe, POV, with dubious notability at best. Article would need to be completely rewritten to meet standards. TNT seems like the best way forward, if notability can be established, the article can be rewritten and properly sourced.  // Timothy ::  talk  16:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - if we strictly apply WP:SIGCOV, this must be deleted. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 23 October 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.