Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health effects of wind power

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. While some articles do not need peer reviewed sources, those, that deal with scientific issues, such as health, do. If this is to be a serious article, it needs relevant basis. If those are found, the article should be written again. Until then, no article is better. Tone 13:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health effects of wind power

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

Non-notable. This appears to be a legitimate article at first glance but, following extensive Talk page discussion, it has become clear that it is actually without peer-reviewed medical sources and is mainly original research and media hype. It promotes a theory and book by Nina Pierpont. Sister article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind turbine syndrome and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Pierpont. Johnfos (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits have reduced the emphasis on Dr. Pierpont, since, as Johnfos notes, this is an important subject that entails much more than just her work. --Kerberos (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the article limited to human health effects? Because I saw a news program on controversy over farmers who believe their livestock are being adversely affected. That subject is definitely notable. There are lawsuits over it. Is it already covered in another article along with bird strikes and other issues? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article as it stands is limited to human health effects, and we have Environmental effects of wind power which comprehensively describes impacts on birds and other animals, and it also describes the more general debate about wind power use. Environmental effects of wind power is a good and solid article in my view. Johnfos (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. The article is not currently supported sufficiently by reliable sources to stand on its own. Suggest merging the text that is ok with one of the parent articles mentioned above. Johnfos notified me on my talk page of this discussion, but did not ask me to vote a certain way. Cla68 (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see. Pierpont's book is supposed to be in print later this month. There may then be reviews in relevant medical journals. Meanwhile, the article is already steering more towards simple loss of sleep, which is a recognized health issue. Furthermore, one person's "media hype" — as in the list of news citations (which no longer includes specifically local stories of health complaints) — is another person's "notability". There is no doubt that this is a major issue in wind turbine siting and deserves its own article. --Kerberos (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Kerberos is an anti-wind single purpose account (see [1]) - rst20xx (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment - the article as it stands appears to have major WP:UNDUE problems - for the article to stay (or be merged) they would need to be addressed. Artw (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. This is essentially the same article that was deleted before; news articles about a soon to be released self-published book do not make this more notable than it was. This deserves a couple of balanced sentences on Environmental effects of wind power and nothing more.Tspine (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recreation of previously-created page; gives WP:UNDUE weight to what is essentially an extremely marginal viewpoint. --Aquillion (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject. Issues of bias or undue weight can be sorted out via editing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject. Issues of bias or undue weight can be sorted out via editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm curious as to why you would say this subject is notable. Have you found some peer-reviewed medical journal articles that we don't know about? Johnfos (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is notable since there is an interest in the topic and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence on the topic. The article should not simply be a collection of anecdotal evidence of course. Note that not all information in WP needs to be from peer reviewed papers (Death of Michael Jackson?? :-) ) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've already been through this once before on the several related articles. Any alleged health effects or other ill-effects of wind turbines should be covered in the main article. This is nothing more than a POV fork as well as advertisement for an upcoming non-scientific self-published anti-wind turbine book by someone who doesn't want their view ruined. This is like creating an article "Health effects of flouridated water", by its nature POV. Drawn Some (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, be on the lookout for a bunch of sockpuppets/meatpuppets to show up here. Drawn Some (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeful Keep - I hope that any point of view or undue weight would be considered, as well as have an appropriate discussion that this is a fringe theory. Otherwise, I would have to find it necessary to merge into Environmental effects of wind power. A longer discussion may be needed. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as unnecessary and inaccurate. Brian Everlasting (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are several "health effects" articles on Wikipedia separate from the main topic. --Kerberos (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as last time this material was pushed here. This is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for random non-notable original research. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NPOV - rst20xx (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and factual accuracy are matters for editing, not deletion. --Kerberos (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well what I'm trying to say is it's a POV fork, which is a matter for deletion - rst20xx (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By its nature, the subject of health effects, like those of environmental effects, history of wind power, wind turbines, and wind farms, not to mention the numerous individual articles about wind energy companies and facilities, deserves its own article separate from the main article for proper treatement. You seem to think that just acknowledging the well documented issue (which really exists and is a growing concern) is evidence of POV. --Kerberos (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that the focus on the pseudoscientific research of Dr Pierpont is evidence of POV. Her research has no scientific rigour.

The research in the book purportedly provides scientific evidence for the condition, but in fact contains a study of 38 individuals from 10 families, who were living near wind farms and approached the author to complain about their symptoms, before then being surveyed. Only 23 of the 38 individuals were actually interviewed; further, Pierpont tells us that, “One family member was a baby born a few days before the family moved out, so there is no data for this child on sleep or behaviour during exposure (which was in utero). Thus the sample size of subjects for whom we have information about experiences or behaviour during exposure is 37.”

With such a small and biased sample, it is difficult to take the results seriously. There have been no peer reviews of the research in reputable scientific journals. A handful of scientists are quoted as having endorsed it, but that is all. This makes for very poor research, and some of the claims made therein are surprising to say the least. For example: “An additional core symptom is a new type of internal or visceral sensation which has no name in the medical lexicon. Subjects struggled to explain these sensations, often apologizing for how strange their words sounded. A physician subject called it “feeling jittery inside” or “internal quivering.” Other subjects chose similar words, while others talked about feeling pulsation or beating inside. The physical sensations of quivering, jitteriness, or pulsation are accompanied by acute anxiety, fearfulness, or agitation, irritability, sleep disturbance (since the symptom arises during sleep or wakefulness), and episodes of tachycardia. I call this sensation and accompanying symptoms visceral vibratory vestibular disturbance (VVVD).” 11 individuals reported such symptoms, and suddenly the disorder has its own name.

It is possible that some people living too close to wind farms experience problems related to the levels of noise coming from them. But any further conditions have not been properly researched at all. The listed symptoms are similar to those that would result from chronic sleep loss, and it seems could more easily be caused by mass hysteria amongst individuals already sceptical of wind farms before turbine installation, than be caused by the actual turbines themselves.

And yet this article, like Wind turbine syndrome and Nina Pierpont before it, has been created, by you, primarily to push this book (though it has now been slightly defocused away from the book). Hence, POV fork. Noise issues were covered adequately in Environmental effects of wind power, and that is where they should return - rst20xx (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence, about a case where the residents didn't live close to the turbines, is not adequate coverage. And health effects, which are widely reported,[2] do not begin and end with Nina Pierpont. --Kerberos (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a POV fork because Wind turbine syndrome has been deleted. This is all well sourced. No peer reviewed medical publications required for WP articles.Biophys (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2009 (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.