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; article was rewritten and substantially improved. Krimpet (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stray voltage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Two attempts to speedy and one to prod removed. Article is nonsense, POV pushing, NN, OR, spam for a group. Vegaswikian 05:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No Original Research -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 05:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the new version. Way better now. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Blatant OR. How did this survive a speedy? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Even the comment on the talk page requesting contest of the speedy is littered with POV pushing! -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 06:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite Delete if not rewritten by the end of the discussion seems like some sort of notable myth about electricity running amok and attacking farm animals, lots of gbooks hits; even has a whole book devoted to debunking it from a technical publisher: Seevers, O.C. (January 1989). Ground Currents and the Myth of Stray Voltage. Pennwell Books. ISBN 0878146369. Layman's introduction here [1]. Obviously the present version of the page needs to be rewritten to address the POV issues about the evil big utilities oppressing the proud independent farmers. cab 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It would need a complete rewrite as an article about the subject of Stray voltage, not one on the topic of Stray voltage. Looking at what I see there, it would need a fresh start anyway. I still feel this version of the article should follow process and be smitten as OR. No reason a replacement can't crop up if its encyclopedic enough. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 06:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with this assessment and that of Dontdoit below, so changed my vote accordingly. Good subject, bad article. cab 06:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite or delete. The article certainly does have POV issues, reeks of original research, and has a number of other problems. On the other hand, it appears to be a legitimate entry, although the current article is unencyclopedic as written. If an editor is able and willing to rewrite this article and address the numerous issues in it, that would obviously be the better option. However, deleting the article and restarting from scratch is also an equally valid solution. Cheers, Afluent Rider 06:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has been rewritten, and I have no further concerns regarding it. Keep. Cheers, Afluent Rider 11:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see that there's any useful material in this article. It would need a total rewrite to become encyclopaedic. Dontdoit 06:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's been rewritten from a more objective point of view. Nick mallory 07:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nick mallory's rewrite. Although the old version was heavily POV and OR-ridden, the topic is definitely notable whether or not you believe the claims. Living in a dairy state, as I do, this comes up again and again. There are reports and conferences for major universities and discussion at the legislative/regulatory level as well. --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added cited discussion of a Wisconsin court case and state bill on the topic. --Dhartung | Talk 09:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Well done to Nick mallory for finding sources. There are plenty more. Try ISBN 0824792378 (which has an excellent diagram on page 314) and ISBN 013365446X, for examples. Multiple non-trivial published works from reliable and independent sources exist. Keep. Uncle G 09:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per rewrite, article is much better now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a perennial issue in farm states; sources have been added, and the article takes a more reasonable tone. If Jonny Quest fought a monster made from escaped electricity, it must be scientific, right? - Smerdis of Tlön 14:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nothing remotely mythical about it.The original article was impermissibly POV and lacked references satisfying WP:A but the rewritten article is ok, but still needs work. Electric utilities in dairy areas have endless headaches and spend a lot of money trying to remediate it,even though it is often due to the customer's equipment. It causes economic problems for dairy farmers. Even a volt or two of potential difference between the grounded or "earthed" neutral and the actual floor of a milking parlor can interfere with milk production. The normal editing process is the venue for removing any myths or pseudoscience which people might seek to add. In a hospital operating room similar concerns led to remarkable precautions to prevent differences of potential from supposedly grounded equipment.A good article can be written from reliable sources such as US Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 67, "Effects of Electrical Voltage/Current on Farm Animals. There is also "Ground Currents and the Myth of Stray Voltage" by O.C. Seevers, P.E. There was an article on this in Electrical World magazine in the early 1990's which would be found in college libraries. Far more than a dictionary definition. The present article may have gone too far in removing material about the earth current sent into the ground by utility ground rods having an effect on dairy herds, but that's an editing issue. To the other extreme, some farmers have irrationally attributed their own every ache and pain to "stray voltage." Stick to evidence from reliable sources.Edison 15:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - looks like a nice rewrite, and kudos to Nick mallory for it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 31 May 2007 (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.