Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safe City

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Safe City

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. WP:NEO from some... "group"... basically a blog. Exceedingly WP:FRINGE. Apparently they believe that electromagnetic fields cause disease. So yeah, we're all screwed, and "in less than 1000 days by [their] calculations" no less.

The title is so exceedingly generic so as to make it virtually impossible to look for sources, but even if it wasn't I wouldn't expect to find any anyway. TimothyJosephWood 20:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seconded. The Verified Cactus 100% 20:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I may have accidentally contested the PROD here, thinking I could get it through A7. But, it seems that would not happen. Anyways, delete as an obvious hoax. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah RB. The author removed it. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google has almost never heard of this term being used in this way. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your chain and reasoning. Yes, it's an opinion piece, but it creates the new term Safe City. Marketing forces also created the term "Smart City" lol. This type of response is typical among the biophysics community and the people that have not learned the science of the Electromagnetic Spectrum and how it influences health. Does sunlight convert cholesterol to vitamin D via the EM Spectrum. You bet it does. You'll find within a few months (maybe a year tops) you'll be adding it back again. Mark this post for later as the coining of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robyninthehode (talk • contribs) 17:18, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

"This type of response is typical among the biophysics community" Yet you don't have any sources in the article backing up any usage (let alone large-scale) of the term in the biophysics community. At the end of the day, it doesn't qualify as an article, regardless of your claims or whether or not it will become a widespread term in the future. The Verified Cactus 100% 19:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolute tosh. Surely this could be speedily deleted as a hoax? There is nothing to gainsay that evaluation. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No V, WP:G3 only applies to "pages that are intended to misinform". It doesn't cover WP:FRINGE theories. TimothyJosephWood 21:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourced content. Reads like a high school essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2017 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.