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. The arguments that this is OR are persuasive. Consensus ist that this may be an encyclopedic topic, but that it would need to be covered in another way than in an essay. Sandstein 13:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of air pollution on health in communities of color in America[edit]

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

Basically a WP:POV fork. This is a school project which seeks to re-state what is already known about air pollution, but wants to focus how bad it is on poor people. Only it lacks reference or context. – S. Rich (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether or not an article is a school project should be ignored during deletion discussions, but it is still a POV fork. We already have plenty about the health impact of air pollution, and environmental justice exists. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Train2104. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant POV fork. As essays go it is a decent one, but not well-suited to Wikipedia. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Srich32977: Additional articles created by this group, all of which look like POV forks: Organophosphate Pesticides Effect on Women's Health, Water contamination in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama, Racial Housing Discrimination in the Bay Area, California, Food Justice – Train2104 (t • c) 21:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Without reference to whether the article may need cleanup and improvement, the topic is certainly notable — discussion of the fact that pollution has a disproportionate impact on minority communities is accepted mainstream social science. See [1], [2], [3], etc. There certainly can be an article on this topic, and the mere existence of such an article is not inherently POV, any more than the existence of an article on climate change is POV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TNT Nuke and pave, because air pollution affects more than black people. Oops, all people, because all people are colored. See? There's a long list of problems: Lead is too long, bad title, most of the article has nothing to do with blacks except for a couple lines thrown into the end of the paragraphs. Since this is and Ed project, they should learn what is acceptable,a nd how to fix it. Useful life skill. L3X1 (distant write) 23:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful pointer could be given out at the Talk page, where there is some Ed-oriented conversation going on. L3X1 (distant write) 23:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In fact, in my opinion it should be speedily deleted, as it is perfectly clear that the whole article is a totally blatant attempt to promote a point of view. It is completely incompatible with Wikipedia's principles. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote and some others are reactions that are seem consistent with the voter being unaware of the objective facts out there, and their assuming that the whole topic is nonsense, when it is not. It is simply objective fact that different groups get different pollution, as the wealthier choose to live in cleaner-air neighborhoods and are willing to pay a measurable premium to do so, and as poorer neighborhoods persist in the shadow of industrial and traffic pollution. I have some past familiarity with economic studies of this, including some focusing on areas in California and in Texas. Of course it would be possible to go too far and make outrageous political claims involving false conspiracies, but although the article mentions Trump it does not go down ridiculous pathways. This article needs sensible development and editing, but it is a fair topic. --do ncr am 22:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Merge: Holy title, Batman! What relevant content there is should be merged into Air pollution in the United States, Environmental justice, and similar articles. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 07:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NorthBySouthBaranof above. It would, alternatively, also make sense to merge relevant content into, e.g., Environmental justice. XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - reading the article, this isn't about "communities of color in America" - this is a general article about the health effects of air pollution. Within that, there's room (IMO) for "disparities in impact" subsections. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable comment to make at the Talk page, to suggest further editing of the article. --do ncr am 21:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork. And warn the course instructor to exercise better oversight of the material created. It's a very POV course ("the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency," emphasis mine), so it's no surprise that it produces POV articles. St Anselm (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You can't say it is a fork without identifying what article it is a fork from. The topic is valid. It is simply a fact that there are disproportionate effects of air pollution, e.g. from unfortunate but fairly "natural" selection of poorer groups to live in the cheap locations downwind of chemical plants (or equivalently from selection of wealthier to move to cleaner-air locations). Major chemical firms deliberately sited plants in remote areas specifically to avoid causing pollution impacts on communities, then development around them happened. This is part of economic history of the United States. And the health effects can be estimated by various approaches, which economists do. Sure, there could be biases in the writing, and the article could/should be discussed and tagged and edited, but this is done through discussion at its Talk page and normal editing. FYI, I saw this mentioned at wp:ANI. --do ncr am 21:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the nature of the course the students are taking has no bearing on the quality of their work and its appropriateness for Wikipedia. The course, among many other things, aims to help neutrally document the Trump Administration's assault on environmental protection. The word "assault" for example stands in for many more aggressive words used by the President himself. Please feel free to engage me about what you think of the course, but please do so without, in a blanket way, undermining the work that Wikipedians and students are doing here

Finally, please consider this advice about systemic bias from within Wikipedia itself

--EJustice (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EJustice, it really looks like you're here on Wikipedia to push a particular POV, and to encourage hundreds of other editors to do the same. St Anselm (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to remind User:StAnselm that editors focusing on a niche area is not POV-pushing. The only requirement is that writing in the articles adhere to WP:NPOV. Editors are allowed to have a POV, and discuss on talk pages. Ideally editors with different POV can work together to create an article that has WP:BALANCE.] After reviewing the other pages, I am going to withdraw that comment and leave it there. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TNT I notice a lot of uncited sources and possible WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, I think the students must review these policies as the issue is reoccurring across multiple pages. Also problems with the title. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A slanted opinion piece that re-frames and duplicates existing topics to fit the biases of a professor and the students of a class. This is an encyclopedia, not your social justice platform, Professor. IMO this entire wikiedu project is suspect. TheValeyard (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A cross between an essay and a POV fork. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 14 April 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.