Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wireless electronic devices and health

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 keep. This doesn't rule out a merge but consensus is unclear from this AFD. W.marsh 13:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wireless electronic devices and health

Wireless electronic devices and health (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I am completing a nomination begun by an anonymous user. I have no opinion. Someguy1221 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with the article above? They deal with exactly the same issue. More people would search for 'electrosmog' perhaps, though this is the more detailed article. Nick mallory 09:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Hi Nick, I don't see which article that this should be merged with - am I missing something? Unless there is a more suitable place for it to go, I see no reason why this article should be deleted - it is now fairly well referenced and seems to be reasonably balanced between both sides of the argument. Topazg 09:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the AfD directly above this one on 'Electrosmog'. It's exactly the same thing. My point was that 'electrosmog' was a more likely search term as it's the name given to it by the loonies who believe in it. Nick mallory 10:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge this page with electrosensitivity, or just delete. It doesn't stand on its own.

Wikipedia should be an encyclopaedia that contains truth, and whether you define truth as facts or "by consensus" then this article fails. If we have all this stuff in one place it's easier to keep an eye on it. Also see WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, WPNPOV etc 128.243.220.21 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Wikipedia is not the arbiter of truth. It is meant to be a collection of information on notable topics. If said topic happens to be a giant load of bollocks, make that clear in the article (I believe this article already does that), but so long as this particular bollocks is notable, its scientific status is no reason to delete it. Someguy1221 15:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You agree it should contain truth though, and state when articles aren't true or are faith/belief? :) This article is covered perfectly well elsewhere. Redirect to electrosensitivity, or delete

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is "true" does not make it encyclopedic. Of course we should have the truth, but we shouldn't have everything that's true, or we'd have an article about me. (I'm mostly talking about the IP above tho.) Morgan Wick 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant that things in an encyclopaedia should be true. My vote is delete the lot, or at least collect all the rubbish into one place. 82.10.214.10 23:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - To my mind this is a pretty good title, if we're going to discuss merging I'd make this the merged title and redirect the others here. 'Electrosmog' is not really encyclopaedic language is it! And 'Electrosensitivity' is not something I'd search for. Maybe 'Health risks of radio emissions' would be a good alternative? Whatever, I don't think this article should just be dumped, though it does need some wikification, cleanup and copy editing - but those are not really deletion criteria.--Chris Jefferies 20:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I too consider it a reasonable subject for an article, and a good choice of title. It of course needs sources, but I think it's a usable start. The truth amount what injures health is nto relevant--prociding documentation and a balance of iew is what's relevant. DGG 04:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Electrical sensitivity and Redirect this title - Overlapping topics, this should exist as a sub-section in that article, which is a notable, documented concept. This article merely describes a variation on the theme. -- Kesh 04:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I heavily disagree that this merges with Electrical Sensitivity. ES is a very specific and controversial topic, whereas Wireless Electronic Devices and Health is aimed at any literature examining health effects (such as significant EEG responses and suchlike) outside the normal realm of ES provocation studies. Having said that, I think it also highlights the need to shift the over-focus of this article on ES generally to a wider remit. Topazg 10:21, 8 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.