Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind turbine syndrome

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. There was a suggestion to extend the discussion for a few more days, but I feel there has been sufficient time to develop a firm consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wind turbine syndrome

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: Kerberos is an anti-wind single purpose account (see [1]) who has pushed his comment in here at the top of the discussion (see [2]). Johnfos (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Smartse (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Cosmo0 that the article should be reverted back to an earlier date and improved. There do seem to be plenty of sources to use. Smartse (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fringe/coi/nominator etc... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) — 204.96.146.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
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. [3] and [4]. 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)[reply]
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)</small —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandma Moe (talk • contribs) 12:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC) — Grandma Moe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Yes, more of the links are working for me now. Perhaps they have been fixed? Nevertheless, many of them are to apparently self-published and/or fringe websites. Only one seems to link to anything like a reliable site, which is the link to the WFAA-TV article. Nevertheless, this article only establishes that some locals have made claims that a turbine made them ill. It does not establish any kind of broad notability or reliability for a general claim that turbines make people ill, and it certainly does not establish reliability and notability for some kind of widespread syndrome or theory about the syndrome. A second borderline link is to a Japanese page, but its not clear whether this is a reliable source or a fringe one. As in the other case though, this article does not establish notability and reliability for claims of some general widespread syndrome as this article claims. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: this article contains no reliable content, and we can always create an article on the topic later if it actually becomes notable through reliable source

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)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fringe theory unsupported by any peer-reviewed research. ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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) — Wiggyjane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I write as an expert on sleep physiology and sleep medicine. The article is entirely accurate and is not anecdotal. It describes a collection of symptoms associated with exposure to wind turbine noise which have been reported at multiple sites and from multiple countries. The physiological basis is being unravelled. This is a real phenomenon and must be retained.> Sleepexpert (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)— Sleepexpert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sleepexpert, 'experts' have never been given any kind of special consideration on Wikipedia; it is assumed that any expert is capable of producing adequate references to verify their claims. If you can provide peer reviewed articles in mainstream journals to help establish notability, please do so. Otherwise Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and an article on the subject can later be created if the subject attains sufficient notability and verifiability to warrant it. Locke9k (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: People are finally starting to hear about the problems with wind turbines. To delete this article would be a major insult to those suffering terrible living conditions thrust upon them. They are routinely dismissed by the wind corporations and by government officals alike. The reports from all over the world are similar in description. How many more people do you need to hear from to be convinced there is a problem. Why would Dr. Pierpont spend endless hours on a subject that has no merit? Who would be so foolish? The noise and vibration emitting from these turbines is horrible and only those living daily in the wind farms can understand it. Don't squelch their voices now, just when people are finally starting to listen.7brats (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)— 7brats (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and revert recent original research and POV edits to e.g. this edit. Whether it should remain as a separate article, or be merged with wind turbine, is another question, but the phenomenon of people attributing health problems to wind turbines is itself fairly notable. Cosmo0 (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an argument for changing the title to something less POV such as Health effects of wind turbines or Wind turbine#Health effects since the term Wind turbine syndrome seems to be used exclusively by proponents of this particular theory. Cosmo0 (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response:You assert that it is notable, yet last I checked the article contains virtually no third party, reliable references establishing notability. If you could produce some such references to validate your claim, I think we could make some progress on saving the article and balancing it. Otherwise, I think it has to go for lack of notability and unverifiability. The problem is that given the present lack of reliable sources for the topic, it is not possible to write an article on it in an NPOV manner. Locke9k (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on effect of new references: Kerberos has added a bunch of new references to the article. Unfortunately, I do not believe that these references really impact on this AFD, as they don't really do anything to establish the notability of the subject. First, they certainly don't establish the notability of even verifiability of something called "wind turbine syndrome" as they are generally just addressing unnammed anecdotal reports of ill health without a named syndrome or disease related to them. More importantly, they don't really establish sufficient notability for claims of health effects of wind turbines to have their own article. A number of them are in fact entirely self published journals with no evidence of notability or reliability (I am removing these as they have no business being on Wikipedia at all). Other are more links to the same self-published POV fringe site that has already been linked to. The "News reports" on their face seem the most promising; however, upon reading them we see that they do not actually establish that these beliefs are actually notable. Rather thee articles are typically just an isolated report consisting of an anecdotal account of a small number of locals, occasionally with a claim by a non-expert. This is typical local news 'local interest' reporting that doesn't establish broad notability of a fringe claim. In essence, these are not reliable sources for establishing broad notability or for an NPOV coverage of the topic. As a side note, there is already a section of the wind turbine article on criticism. Even though this material isn't really notable enough for its own article, if verifiable material can be found it could be included in that section of the article or in a new section; there is could be given a more balanced coverage in the overall context of Wind Turbines. Right now this article, in addition to non-notability, seems to constitute a POV fork. Locke9k (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Its also a POV fork from the article environmental effects of wind power. Locke9k (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that reliable references are needed and are pretty thin on the ground (the best I could come up with is this report by the UK Government - they mention an article in the national press, which they took seriously enough to commission an independent study - all of which is not really sufficient on its own). But the issue of NPOV is a completely separate one to verifiability: the version I linked to, while unreferenced, was entirely NPOV in that it merely stated that claims had been made which weren't accepted by the scientific community. I also agree that the subject likely doesn't merit a separate article, at least not under this title, but you can hardly call it a POV fork since neither Wind turbine#Criticisms nor environmental effects of wind power mention the subject at all. Cosmo0 (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of coverage in a national newspaper which may be the one mentioned in the above source. Cosmo0 (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article makes no mention of the neologism "Wind tunnel syndrome". Drawn Some (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is such a fringe theory that the article on wind turbines does not even mention health effects on humans in the criticism section. It talks about the danger to birds and bats, environmental issues, etc. The article Wind turbine syndrome doesn't even link to the article on wind turbines, nor vice versa. This is not what one would expect to see. Drawn Some (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it doesn't because historically Wikipedia has deleted anything that like that. See what is happening now.Grandma Moe (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Drawn Some" can easily remedy those shortcomings if s/he wants. As evidence of what "Grandma Moe" says, I added the following to the Environmental Effects section of the Wind Power article on Nov. 17, 2008: 'For human neighbors, the noise created by large wind turbines is often a nuisance. Some people claim that the noise, consisting of both audible as inaudible low frequencies, makes them sick -- not just from lack of sleep. The consistency of this complaint and the symptoms described led the physician Nina Pierpont to call it "wind turbine syndrome."' It is not there now.

Wikipedia is not the place for advertising a book, a fringe theory, or any sort of original research or synthesis. It is an encyclopedia with guidelines for verifiablity and notablity that must be met. And "Wikipedia" doesn't delete anything, the editors do. Drawn Some (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and rewrite. This comes up often enough and has been mentioned in the news enough that it is notable, but the article as it currently exists has serious NPOV problems. Keeping this article neutral will require vigilance. I support changing the name to something more in line with a NPOV as was suggested by Cosmo0. Tspine (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge after reverting POV edits from the last few days merge this with either Wind turbine#Criticisms or environmental effects of wind power using NPOV language. Tspine (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable fringe theory, NPOV issues. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is indeed familiar fringe science, being pushed without any reputable 3rd party evidence, or acceptance by any mainstream medical or scientific communities. Instead, just a variety of anti-wind propaganda that's familiar from a variety of anti-wind sites. I am thinking about reverting the article to an earlier version, before all of this questionable (albeit voluminous) material was added. Withnail68 (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See above entry by Cosmo0, dated 20:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC). -- Crowsnest (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Environmental effects of wind power#Safety with explicit deference to the regular editors there if they want to edit it out. This is no electromagnetic hypersensitivity where the social effects of a discredited fringe hypothesis have generated enough in-depth independent coverage for an article, but there is at least some verifiable information. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 04:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. POV issues are addressed by editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding the reliable sources that might show that this topic has received general attention. Certainly 'Wind turbine syndrome' should not be the title unless WP:MEDRS is satisfied, but if there were enough sources to show it could be neutrally covered, the material could be referenced in some other article. I'm not seeing coverage in mainstream media such as newspapers. It looks to me that the citations are nearly all to activist web sites. The closing admin should look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grandma Moe before doing any vote counting. This debate was mentioned at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article clearly falls within the definition of syndrome." The peer reviews are clearly listed on the Wind Turbine SYndrome homepage and are verifiable. The telephone calls and emails I get on a regular basis are evidence of the existence of WTS. This is an on going clinical study and is widely accepted. The only conflict of interest that I am witnessing is in the comments. These comments mirror actions of the same individuals that have a financial interest. Public awareness of this issue is of the utmost importance, especially to anybody facing the possibilty of having wind turbines installed nearby. Deleting this will be a detriment to society as this has become a global dilemna.WitnessofWTS (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)— WitnessofWTS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: another meatpuppet or sockpuppet that needs to be blocked. Drawn Some (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is further evidence that this article is essentially serving as self promotion of a single person's self-published claims. The primary website for this "syndrome" is [5], which is a website by someone who is trying to publicize their book and their claims. Furthermore, I have done a database search of Web of Knowledge, which is a comprehensive database of scientific publications, of Medline, which is a comprehensive database of medical publications, and of google scholar, which of course is just highly accessible and can access at least abstracts for most publications. None of these searches turn up a single article with this syndrome name in any mainstream publication[6][7][8]. A complete lack of publication on an allegedly medical/scientific topic is essentially incontrovertible proof that the material is not notable withing the scientific community. Nor does the fact that one person is trying to publicize these claims and does not make it notable within the general community (as per the GNG). General claims of ill effects of wind turbines might possibly be notable (although not clearly), but those would belong in a different article. There is no evidence of notability of a syndrome with the name "Wind turbine syndrome". To those of you state that there is evidence of notability, I urge you to consider whether a syndrome of this name has evidence of notability. If not, the page should be deleted. Locke9k (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this I'll change back to Delete The only mention of WTS in anything on google scholar ([9]) says "Wind Turbine Syndrome claims are predominately a North American phenomenon. This is not surprising asthe web site promoting this claim is based in the United States.". I think that sums up the situation pretty well if WTS is only complained about in the US it seems likely that it is a fringe theory. Smartse (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request AFD extension for further comment: Some edits and work have been done over the past few days, I believe in an attempt to remove unreliable or unsourced content. This may affect the AFD and I think the discussion would benefit from some additional community input. Locke9k (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs run for seven days now - will that be sufficient? - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 20:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that a few additional days on top of that would be helpful given the additional recent discovery, based on the recent sockpuppet investigation related to this AFD, that this AFD has been somewhat sidelined by a number of meatpuppets. Maybe an extra two days, up to nine, would be best. Thanks- Locke9k (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While definitely a fringe theory, I'm not sure wind turbine syndrome is notable enough to merit its own article. I get 41 news stories from google news using "wind turbine syndrome" in quotes with the "all time" setting, but I'm not sure any of them are particularly notable. I like the idea of making a new section in Wind turbine#Criticisms or Environmental effects of wind power about wind turbine syndrome and keeping it short to comply with undue weight and leaving it at that. Sifaka ^talk 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If this particular named article is deemed to be jumping the gun on notability and is therefore deleted and its material folded into another article on the health effects of industrial wind turbines, will that prevent it from being created at a later date should "wind turbine syndrome" indeed become notable as such? If so, then this article definitely needs to be kept, because Dr. Pierpont's work is increasingly recognized and corroborated by other physicians. It actually attests to her clinical rigor that she has not rushed her study into print, not only as a self-published book (with peer reviews included), but also a planned series of articles for the medical literature. It is more likely than not to become well established, so it would be unfortunate if this AfD request were to preemptively prevent a future Wikipedia article on this prominent aspect of the growing problem of ill effects from industrial wind turbines.

It should also be noted that nobody associated with Pierpont started this article. Its history since its creation in August 2008 was fairly quiet until this past month, when a few people following the issue thought that it could be expanded, triggering a backlash and finally the AfD request. It therefore seems that the article was not worthy of inclusion only when it started to include more information and supporting material that could not easily be dismissed by people who would appear to have a bias against the publication of adverse facts about large-scale wind power. Kerberos (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, no, something can be deleted as non-notable and later become notable and have an article. Even fringe theories and other ideas that are non-scientific that are well known can be included as such if they are notable, such as the belief that the Queen Elizabeth II is a reptilian humanoid.

I will caution you though that legitimate, reputable scientists (and physicians are scientists) almost always publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals well before publishing books about their findings. The general trend is for journals to be too inclusive rather than exclusive, with falsified research being published. Genuine contributions to the body of scientific knowledge are rarely excluded. I can name several incidents of the former off the top of my head but no modern examples of the latter. Drawn Some (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the above apt response by Drawn Some, I'll add one additional response: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Essentially, this means that we don't keep an article around based on the prediction that the material is likely to become notable. We only base these decisions on present notability. Thus, if the material is ever published in mainstream journals, that will then help establish its notability. Your assertion that Pierpont is planning a series of journal articles is of no help; not only is that claim unsubstantiated by references, but even if she does submit such articles we have no way to know that they will actually be accepted and published. Finally, I'll make a side point that almost by definition a 'self-published book' can't have legitimate 'peer-review' included, because the author is controlling the source of the 'peer review'. A major element of peer review is that the reviewers are not chosen by the author of the work (in some journals the author can recommend reviewers but the journal editor makes the actual decision). Locke9k (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRINGE, coi, NOTVOTE, WP:RS ect... Not sure how discussion got this far...--Unionhawk ^Talk 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Dlabtot (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- One of the problems of emerging science is that there is little accepted peer review at first. Groups that stand to profit from the technology want to suppress negative info. Groups that are opposed take the opposite stance. Health impacts from vibration, especially low frequency vibration are not unknown. Untill the returns are in it would not serve the public interest to be too eager to suppress this potential health problem just because it is inconvenient and may even be a truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.246.2.11 (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another meatpuppet? Locke9k (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, content-wise, we don't write articles on "emerging" material that haven't yet been covered in third party reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Locke9k (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dr. Pierpoint's concerns are based on a relatively small sample (a dozen or so) of people living near turbines, of which there are tens of thousands in North America, and probably ten times that many around the world, so their statistical validity must be questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.246.57 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a coatrack to criticise wind turbines. Any reliable sources on the topic of annoyance or health problems from wind turbines (e.g. [10][11][12][13]) should go into Environmental effects of wind power. This is a POV fork. Fences and windows (talk) 00:47, 8 May 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.