Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrosmog


 * 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 no consensus. Any possible merge proposal should be done editorially.  Daniel  04:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Electrosmog

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination. AFD tag was placed on article by User:82.10.214.10 with the edit summary: "This is a very poor excuse for an article. If this term deserves any recognition, it should be in the wikitionary. also WP:NOR etc" Personally, I'm going for keep unless someone gives me a more compelling reason, the article seems to be well cited. Someguy1221 08:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This idea is pure quackery of course, but it has been in the news and a proper article on Wikipedia, pointing out why it's bollocks is better than ignoring it completely. Nick mallory 09:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, as far as I can see, there is nothing bollocks about the term "Electrosmog". It is merely a word used to define Electromagnetic Radiation -- However, the association with ES is tenious at best, and this should be reflected as necessary. Topazg 09:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It should be in the wiktionary, if anywhere. The whole article states that the term is essentially meaningless (and if it doesn't then it's been vandalised). The showing it's bollocks can go in the electrosensitivity page. Maybe replace with a redirect? 128.243.220.21 14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The term itself isn't meaningless - the phenomena is. The fact that there have been tests to prove it wrong only gives more of a reason to keep it around. fuzzy510 00:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we make it clearer then that it quackary that is ruining the lives of sufferers, who should have their symptoms properly diagnosed, and is making large amounts of money for the greedy and rich woo industry? Right at the top I think :) It's also an horrible word, I hope it never gets into the OED

82.10.214.10 09:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article already makes clear that the scientific consensus is that all alleged health effects are placebo or completely unfounded.  If you can find a reliable source describing the negative health effects of believing in this junk instead of seeing a doctor, then we can work that in.  Someguy1221 00:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I see this as an unnecessarily pejorative buzzword, designed purely to make Electromagnetic Radiation appear dangerous and or harmful. I think neither the word nor the article should exist. Topazg 10:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Follow-up - Actually, as Electrosmog appears to be nothing other than a buzzword to Electromagnetic Radiation, perhaps it should just be a redirect to Electromagnetic_radiation?


 * Comment Article is POV. I am a little suspicious when people rabidly attack a position such as this. True science aims to keep an open mind, not to make people look ridiculous for being concerned about something. ~ Infrangible 02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This should be covered in the electromagnetic radiation page, it only warrants a brief statement regarding its lack of scientific evidence anyway. --Wesman83 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge to any article with similar content. I can attest that 'Elektrosmog'', in German-speaking countries, is a household word for the purported negative effects of ubiquitous EM radiation. The term seems to be less popular in English, but the subject matter - fear of EM radiation - is real and merits an article somewhere. Sandstein 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per fuzzy510. - G  1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 22:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 16:33, 14 June 2007 (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.