Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind turbine syndrome

Wind turbine syndrome

Wind turbine syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This appears to be a legitimate article at first glance but is actually original research and synthesis used to promote a theory and books by Nina Pierpont and edited primarily by an account and an ISP account that may have a conflict of interest. Drawn Some (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Drawn Some

• Keep. This is about a new phenomenon, because large-scale installations of industrial wind turbines are new. It can be strengthened by more news reports, which continue to increase. The CBC has been reporting on these problems for years, first in Nova Scotia, now in Ontario. As other physicians see the same symptoms, which are relieved when the subjects leave the area of the wind turbines, they are coming to agree with Pierpont's findings rather than question them. Nissenbaum in Maine and McMurtry in Ontario have gone on to duplicate her findings, as Pierpont herself followed the work of others, such as Harry in England. This is emerging science. As far as the article rigorously sticks to the facts (which it does -- there is no anecdote or exaggeration), it should be kept. Kerberos (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with nominator. Evidence for syndrome is anecdotal and exaggerated. No peer-reviewed medical journal articles on this. Johnfos (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Most of the reference links are actually dead. The only references that do anything to establish notability are links to two local newspaper articles on claims by some people that wind turbines are hurting them. There are no reliable sources to document the theory itself; therefore all of that material would have to be thrown out to keep the article. What would be left would simply be a report that some people claim that turbines hurt them, but given the low level of references this isn't really notable enough for its own article. However, it appears to me that adding it to the wind turbine article would be undue weight due to the low notability and reliability of these claims. There is therefore not preservable material in this article. Delete.
• Delete - non-notable fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Smartse (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per fringe/coi/nominator etc... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The nominator is mistaken in the provenance of the article. A glance at the history of edits shows that many editors have worked on the article over the last year. Furthermore, I must say that the article is well written. No opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted however have I. Yardleyman (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yardley, it's not quite that simple. Firstly the article has not been around for a full year. Secondly, one IP user has made major expansions in the past week (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.71.80.249). Thirdly, the article is not well written as it exaggerates the case for WTS. Johnfos (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete this article. Just because people want green energy, it does not follow that the truth be snuffed out. As the evidence continues to pile up across the country with people who have had 400 ft turbines foisted on them, we must demand from our federal government regulations to protect people and wildlife from an out of control industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.146.165 (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite. In the present form of the article, all the arguments given by the nominator apply. However, the phrase "wind turbine syndrome" appears to be notable, having quite some news coverage, e.g. [1] and [2]. So as such, it is a notable phenomenon. But the article needs to be rewritten to clearly state the scientific consensus on this; and remove the synthesis, original research and bias. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Just because this is new emerging information is no reason to censor it. Don't be afraid of the truth! This cannot be suppressed if an intelligent argument is to develop. What part of Nina Pierponts, cases in Canada, Japan, US, Nissembaums or McMurtry surveys, etc. is untrue? The biased has gone way too far the other way for too long. For instance in the photo, it states the cows continue to graze under the turbines. What else do you expect a cow to do? Run screaming from the field? Roll on the ground with their hooves over their ears? Sit down and write a strongly worded letter? This propoganda has got to stop. Do not try to suppress the opinions of these solid medical professionals simply because it does not match your political goals or your narrow paradigm.

Also a prior comment says most of the links are dead. That is simply false. I've checked and they all work for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandma Moe (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandma Moe (talk • contribs) 12:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - User:Grandma Moe is one of the creators of these articles. Drawn Some (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep, for now This is (or maybe isn't) an emerging issue and cites some things from overseas. A lot of work has been put in in the last 2 days, let folks keep adding to it, tag as a possible COIN, weed out all the bad/dead sources, cut out the outsourced material and then prod it again in a couple weeks. - Schrandit (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable fringe theory unsupported by any peer-reviewed research. ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not delete...this is a really important subject. Not enough is known about how turbines interact with teh environment around them...RESEARCH is desperately needed. And the real human devastation needs to be acknowledged and addressed - possibly by simply putting a bigger distance between turbines and humans. To delete is to deny the existence of a real problem. Wiggyjane (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)