Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Delete redirect and keep user draft. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

WP:POVFORK packed with WP:SYN, WP:FRINGE nonsense and with no hope of replacing the current article. Guy (Help!) 00:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect userfy draft this is never going to replace the existing article so it's existance as a draft is pointless. ~~The material is not even useful as a point of departure for content discussions because~~ this draft's content is both completely at odds with the current medical/scientific consensus and has no MEDRS compliant sources which would allow it to be discussed as a legitimate 'minority opinion'. Jbh ^Talk 03:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 11:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]
~~Delete:~~ Clear WP:POVFORK, pseudoscience that will never meet Wikipedia's standards for a medical article. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck and unbolded duplicate bolded !vote. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a duplicate of the article on electromagnetic hypersensitivity. It was spun off because the editor concerned lost their arguments on the talk page. It is also a pseudoscientific alternative without adequate reliable sourcing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC) See below — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Unbolded duplicate !vote. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per above, especially per Steelpillow. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck and unbolded duplicate !vote. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article will never come to anything. Agreeing with all good coments above Unconventional2 (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Patent nonsense. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ISB22. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user space & delete redirect: This tries to duplicate of the article on electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Its discusses some new research into the effects of EM on physiology, which appears to be genuine - see also this recent conversation. However it appears to be based solely on primary sources and the link to EHS is more tenuous and lacks adequate reliable sourcing to avoid the taint of pseudoscience (hence my original first impression, which I have struck out above), so it in no way represents a substitute article. It may be too soon to present these findings or they may prove non-viable, but I think we should give this material a chance to be improved. If its encyclopedic quality rises sufficiently, a suitable permanent home can then be found. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Following discussion with the page creator here, I have moved this draft to User:ISB22/sandbox. From here on in we are discussing the deletion of a redirect page. We can get all picky and start over at WP:RfD, or we can carry on here. Please yourselves. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sandbox and delete redirect. Steelpillow made the right call in moving this to the sandbox. There is no reason to keep the cross-namespace redirect. Bradv 20:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the userfied page. It is still a WP:POVFORK. POVforks are not ok either in draftspace or userspace. The content is in an article. Use the talk page. Forking means sidestepping community objections, taking it to unwatched place. Short term sandboxing is OK, but under the control of the article talk page only. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redirect and wait a bit before deleting the page in userspace. He deserves a chance to attempt to find WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that support his preferred content. Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎#...biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity... --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought the sources should be found before povforking a recognised fringe science topic? Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a well written description of fringe, the fork is not. Chemical sensitives are much more plausible and mainstream and should not be allowed to confuse the picture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. WP:BITE. It's safe enough in user space for a little while I reckon. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is new, yes, but his second edit was to fork a pseudoscience article. All of the above criticism still applies. User:Steelpillow's bold move and removal of the MfD tag during the course of this discussion is improper. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) She is new. 2) Anybody can make a bad second edit, we should not WP:BITE them for it. She has behaved well enough since getting the idea that she needs to - and can - talk. 3) She is prepared to engage in sensible conversations on her talk page and appears to have a good grasp of what science is all about. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As she is new, she would be far better advised to improve the existing article, in userspace, where other interested editors hc an watch, interact, and discuss in the usual way on the article talk page. On a forked copy, either in draftspace or userspace, she will probably work alone, unwatched, unmentored, making pretty serious mistakes, much like she already has done. As with any WP:UP#COPIES, forking to userspace is usually a bad thing, with the exception of short term testing, after which the forked content is to be deleted. This apparent willingness to allow a newcomer to POVFORK to userspace is astounding. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mistake my intent. your approach is actually quite close to mine at User:ISB22/sandbox‎‎, I am suggesting there that it should not represent a set piece POVFORK but a working sandbox to work up shorter, more focused observations which may or may not find homes in one article or another. That's why I chose that particular page as a (temporary) new home. I do not expect its current form to last for long and I agree that it shouldn't. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did mistake your intent, but understand it better now, and remain convinced that the page is a mistake. The core problem is that it is a massive deliberate fork of an article, to be edited for another long lasting goal, and as such it has attribution problems. On that view, I think it is only acceptable to keep if the entire history of the article Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is duplicated. I understand that this is technically possible, though I think very undesirable. It is undesirable, apart from attribution complexity, because this fringe topic will be worked on in isolation from topic-interested editors. To the extent that the intention is to introduce new content and new references, OK, but that does not require a copy of a version of the mainspace article as a starting point. A new draft for different content should begin with the new different content. Ultimately, I am also fairly sure that this spinoff will never be an acceptable spinoff. The old references to be given undue weight were in error in failing consider other causes of adverse effects associated with high energy radio frequencies, such as the carelessness of use of heavy metals in electronics in those the early days. Then, the modern literature deals with, to my reading, in cases such as the early high energy cellular telephones and MRI, where the hazard is almost surely simple conversion to thermal energy. This thermal energy quantifies as small compared to standing in sunlight. It is a fringe pseudo-medical science typical of Facebook medicine, more suited to inclusion under hypochondriasis than any title beginning with the more impressively scholarly-sounding "Electromagnetic". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved administrator: I've re-added the MfD template to User:ISB22/sandbox. Bold actions are great, but boldly removing a page from discussion after half a dozen editors have advocated for its deletion is not-so-great. If the consensus here is userfy, the page can be retained as a userspace draft. If the consensus here is delete, it should be deleted at its current location. Deleting just the redirect is also an option. Given the bold move, retargeting of the MfD, and then restoration of the original MfD's target to this discussion, pinging all previous contributors to clarify their views if they'd like to: @Jbhunley, Steelpillow, SmokeyJoe, Unconventional2, MjolnirPants, Guy Macon, and Bradv:. When stating delete, please clarify whether that means deleting the redirect after userfying or deleting the draft. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missed one ping. JzG. Also struck several duplicate !votes above, giving preference to the most recent. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, I agree with Rob13 The draft should be deleted from userspace and draft space. I don't see any indication that ISB22 is going to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#...biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity..., and that discussion has once again made it clear that ISB22 has no WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that support his preferred content. Nuke them both. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be invidious to expect a newbie to participate in such intense wikilawyering. I have made the need for secondary sources clear on the user page. We should at least give her the chance to offer some before nuking it, if only so as not to WP:BITE her. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with ISB22 keeping this on her own user page. I agree that it has little hope of going anywhere but I believe in giving chances, and not being overly harsh on well intentioned users.Unconventional2 (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.