Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia


 * 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. To delete at this time. The prevailing view is that this article has substantial OR / POV issues, but could perhaps through moves, mergers or editing be salvaged. If this does not happen, a renomination appears possible.  Sandstein  07:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article one of many problematic ones created as a class project, deprodded by a student in the class. This is a POV intersection of two topics that in themselves are notable. StAnselm (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete The main problem I see with this is the title - if the Wikipedia editors started writing articles with titles like these all hell would break loose on Wikipedia. I think we need to maintain the same standard for WikiEdu. I noticed there is no article for "Coal Mining in Appalachia" which I think is a notable topic. I don't think there would be a problem with creating the article focusing on the environmental impact and then others could add to it. If any one section became too long that it started to overburden the article, then we would consider whether WP:SPINOUT was appropriate. Systemic bias is a real problem in some areas of Wikipedia, but I think right now most of the objection is due to proliferation of articles with titles that don't fit Wikipedia's encyclopedic style. Seraphim System (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, but salvage some content via cutting and pasting into another article Title not NPOV. Content quality issues in sections. Overtly political in some sections. Knox490 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, but remove WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY sources. This obscure sounding topic is clearly GNG|notable based on plenty WP:SECONDARY sources such as, ,  and much more found in the article.  Perhaps the title might be slightly simplified by widening the scope to "Env. Justice in Appalachia" or "Health Impacts in Appalachia" or "Disparity in Appalachia", etc., as a subheading of the wider scoped article.  However, the topic is notable, so a full article is justified IMHO. Userfy  Ask students to carefully read the guide that comes with these courses and additionally WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV.  It might be wise to work on these articles in a sandbox and bring these articles to WP:AfC for review before attempting publish in main space.  --David Tornheim (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)  [revised 20:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)]
 * Delete – I am the editor who initiated the PROD and I suggested that Appalachia was the appropriate article in which to add environmental concerns. This article, with its "Environmental justice" title is simply an effort to push the environmental justice social/political movement. – S. Rich (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * delete -there is pure WP:OR here as well as WP:SYN - the real topic of this article essay appears to be "Why coal mining is evil". (it may well be, but WP is not the place to make that argument). Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC) If my !vote didn't make it clear enough, the essay fails NPOV by miles. It isn't written to provide an encyclopedic summary of accepted knowledge about any topic, but rather to show that viewed through the lens of the environmental justice movement, coal mining in Appalachia has been a very bad thing.  This is indeed what essays do.  This is a "live tiger" in Wikipedia. (see WP:Beware of tigers)  We have been calling these articles WP:POV forks for good reason.  What this class is doing, is creating articles that view topic X from the POV of environmental justice.  That is not OK in Wikipedia.  Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment how do you feel about Free-market environmentalism?  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 06:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article and not the views in it, I guess you mean... and I guess you are asking how my rationale here would apply to a deletion !vote, there, if there was one. Well first, it is apples and oranges, topic-wise. That is one of a series of articles within political science/philiosophy, namely  "Libertarian views on X", where X is a policy topic. Similarly we have a series on Socialism and within that Eco-socialism, and there are a whole slew of series and articles within them, like those.  Those are apples.  We don't have Libertarian perspectives on coal mining in Appalachia. That would also be an orange, that one could compare, topicwise.   All that said, the article you asked about is very bad, very unsourced and full of OR etc.  Does that answer you? Jytdog (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I noted above in this comment, there is plenty of good WP:SECONDARY WP:RS on this topic, but how much WP:RS can you find in scholarly articles about your example Libertarian perspectives on coal mining in Appalachia?  You may believe that "coal mining is evil" or that it is "not evil", or something more sophisticated, but your views are not what matters.  What is important is what is in the WP:RS and the WP:RS shows that this topic is notable.  If the article does not correctly articulate what is in the WP:RS in WP:NPOV fashion, yes, I agree that is a problem, and that can be fixed.  I do agree with you that the article contains WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY sources and some WP:SYN, but if that is removed, we can produce a nice little article initiated by the student(s) on a clearly notable subject.  Agreed?  --David Tornheim (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The topic of coal mining in Appalachia is notable in itself. But when the environmental justice label gets attached to the WP:TOPIC the POV problems can overwhelm calm and rational editing. That is, the issue of "justice" (in the eye of the particular editor or reader) becomes the issue/topic, instead of the greater goal of informing readers in a non-POV and balanced manner. The class should start out with "What are important issues in Appalachia?" rather than "What are the important justice/environmental justice issues in Appalachia?". That way we avoid the presupposition that environmental issues are at the core of the topic. (BTW, my father was born in Northumberland County, PA, and grew up in Lycoming County, PA. Both of which are in the NE reaches of Appalachia.)  – S. Rich (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per POV but please salvage things for other pages--Cs california (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is very important in addressing an important Environmental Justice issue. Changes should be made to the article to make the connection between Appalachian mining and Environmental Justice more clear, but the sources referenced are very good and do point to a clear argument that this really is an Environmental Justice issue.Grayrock (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC) — Grayrock (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KEEP This article is informative in regards to coal mining and the consequential environmental justice effects. This article should be kept on this page if necessary changes are made to make a neutral point of view. This is a really good reference for a new section on Environmental Justice of Mountain Top Mining: http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=jhdrp&sei-redir=1&referer=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Denvironmental%2Bjustice%2Bin%2Bappalchia%26btnG%3D%26as_sdt%3D1%252C5%26as_sdtp%3D#search=%22environmental%20justice%20appalchia%22 OrangeRock (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC) — OrangeRock (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: I have changed my !vote to above to keep based on noticing that there is, in fact, plenty of strong WP:SECONDARY WP:RS in the article.   I was distracted by the WP:LEDE's WP:OR and WP:SYN and noticing too many WP:PRIMARY sources, and I regret I did not look closer, at all the sources the first time.  If the objectionable material and sources is cleared out so that the focus is on the good WP:SECONDARY sources, we can have a nice article that meets Wiki standards. It will probably be shorter. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have changed my vote also - environmental impact of the industry in West Virginia is widely covered, and notable, including non-biased sources like weather.com as are mining methods specific to this region, I would be happy to help with revising the current article Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is a pleasure working with you.  --David Tornheim (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But that would be "environmental impact" rather than "environmental justice". StAnselm (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Or to make it wider, Impacts of coal mining in Appalachia. But we generally avoid "X and Y" articles like this, because it assumes a notable intersection rather than a notable aspect. StAnselm (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Instead of Impacts of coal mining in Appalachia, how about simply coal mining in Appalachia? Neutralitytalk 01:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be excellent. As I pointed out in the nomination, that is a notable subject. If the article is kept, it should be moved there - but it would still take a fair bit of work neutralising it. StAnselm (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is one of the many articles recently created as a class project, and one of the few I'd keep. The several issues with the article can be addressed easily with ordinary editing. Nobody can, with a straight face, claim these issues are not notable. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Bearian at a high level, sure. But this document is an essay that makes an argument. It is nothing like a Wikipedia article, and that goes down to the small details.  If you care to, please actually read the ref cited in the very last subsection.   It is freely available and is actually a great read.  Then read that last paragraph, and see if you believe that a) it is supported by the source; b) it accurately summarizes what the source gives WEIGHT to.  I did, and found the content is not all supported and that more importantly it doesn't reflect what the source emphasizes.  It also doesn't explain much of anything about the case, what it is about, or why it mattered.  Instead it clumsily makes an EJ argument (which goes directly against the ref).    It fails on about every level.  You will find these problems in lots of places in this document, and the thing as a whole.  Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I added a new section to the talk page of the article to point out problem with WP:OR:  Talk:Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia.  I added the most glaring issue of paragraph 2 of the lede.  I think it would be helpful to the students if the specific claims of OR--which I know there are many--are clearly pointed out and remedies are provided for fixing the issue.   --David Tornheim (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you notify the appropriate student(s), TA(s) and WikiED support staff so that these concerns can be addressed? --David Tornheim (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * will do. Thanks all for the input and help. EJustice (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Move to Coal mining in Appalachia and re-purpose to cover all aspects: historical, economic, social, environmental, health-related, and political. If two or three other users will commit to doing it with me, we could do a good article rescue on this? Neutralitytalk 01:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your openness to feedback. What do you think about changing the scope of the article to be slightly (or greatly) wider, given some of the possibilities proposed above?  I consider this subject notable in itself and worthy of an article, but I could also see potential advantages of incorporating it into a section(s) of a wider scoped article, e.g.:
 * Coal mining in Appalachia
 * Impacts of coal mining
 * Impacts of coal mining in Appalachia
 * Environmental justice in Appalachia
 * Health impacts in Appalachia
 * Health impacts in Appalachia from coal mining
 * Health disparity in Appalachia
 * -- other editors are free to add more possibilities, just add the next number in the list...
 * Can you and your students give us feedback on this proposal too? I haven't had time to read through all the WP:RS in the article and some of it is not available on-line.  Being more familiar with the WP:RS, you may be in a better position to judge which scope has the most notable material, and whether a wider scope is an appropriate resolution, or whether you feel the independent WP:SECONDARY WP:RS are sufficient to support a very focused standalone article free of WP:OR on this specific subject.  --David Tornheim (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a broader article would allow us to include the significant economic issues also both past and present so I would support Move - it is more neutral that way. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Have made some edits and pushed the question above on the Talk page as well as through TAs. Lots of great material here for the options listed above and, with some more work, a standalone page. The key to the standalone is documenting the proven yet counter-intuitive link that more regulation in Appalachia=more economic and environmental security and jobs and structuring the article so that that information flows in a neutral tone.  The research shows that more capital-intensive (and job-killing) approaches to mining require less regulation to work. This is notable given the public discussion of coal right now. Thanks all!EJustice (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, the page is still full of WP:SYN and things made up out of thin air. And the whole thing is still an essay making an argument, not a Wikipedia article. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please identify specific cases of WP:OR that need to be addressed on the talk page of the article as I have asked before? A number of experienced editors have pointed out that there is sufficient WP:RS that the subject is notable and that the article can be corrected by ordinary editing procedures to conform to our standards. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding to the question and asking your students to respond. Regarding, The key to the standalone is documenting the proven yet counter-intuitive link that more regulation in Appalachia=more economic and environmental security and jobs and structuring the article so that that information flows in a neutral tone. The research shows that more capital-intensive (and job-killing) approaches to mining require less regulation to work.  These claims will have be made in the WP:RS, not something that can be proven, or it becomes synthesis and WP:OR.  Although, WP:OR is wonderful stuff, and I think might be welcome at other projects of Wikimedia, our policies and guidelines don't allow it in the articles--even though there many cases where it is a long-standing problem, and if you see them, please feel free to point them out or correct them.  When you say the link is already "proven", can you give us some WP:RS that says exactly that?  We should probably continue this discussion at the talk page of the article, where I copied your thoughts and my concerns:  Talk:Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia --David Tornheim (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are not reading the sources or the content that is right in front of you. if you read the content and sources you will find lots of direct OR (like in the last paragraph, there is stuff there that is not at all in the source like "such as black or poor communities".)   At a higher level there is a ton of SYN here, where things are gathered in strange ways. What is "Coal surface mining in Appalachia is responsible for 85% of US' CO2 emissions produced from electricity contributing to climate change as processes not only omit CO2, but also clear forests that act as CO2 sinks" doing in the environment subsection under the "Disparities in Appalachia's coal mining communities" section?  Why is the "judicial cases" subsection in the "Politics" section at all?  Here is more direct OR --  What is the source for "These cases highlight that environmentalists challenge the EPA and other government agencies leniency in providing permits."?   As I noted above if you read the ref used throughout the Judicial cases section, it actually says that litigation about permitting is pretty useless with regard to EJ concerns, as regulation is based on law (and is struck down when it isn't) and the law doesn't take EJ concerns into account.  The ref explicitly advises EJ activists not to put too much hope that regulatory litigation is an effective way to address EJ concerns.  Where is that in the content, that relies so heavily on this ref?    Why is there discussion of stream pollution in the health section, disconnected from any discussion about health? (there is a section directly below it for environment)   Almost every ref in the Health section fails MEDRS and grabbing non-MEDRS refs and building content based on them is OR POV pushing.  I could keep going with all the problems with this document;  it is pretty much of a disaster.  How this might be graded as an essay in a college class I don't know (I am scared to think about it) but as a Wikipedia article it is not acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing specifics. For now, I will leave it to the instructor and students and other editors to attend to the concerns you raised.  I don't have time to look into it further at the  moment.  --David Tornheim (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2017 (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.