943:
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
Knowledge (XXG) 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
284:. 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.
814:: 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.
1584:
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
Knowledge (XXG) article on this prominent aspect of the growing problem of ill effects from industrial wind turbines.
652:
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.
345:. 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
1105:"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 "
555:
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.
1427:, 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.
76:
1365:
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.
947:. 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.
1438:. 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).
1647:
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).
1556:
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
1364:
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
1583:
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
712:
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
445:
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.
785:
Sleepexpert, 'experts' have never been given any kind of special consideration on
Knowledge (XXG); 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
554:
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
1703:
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
994:
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
916:
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
1646:
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'
748:
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
1589:
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
1335:
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
489:
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
1242:
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
675:
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. -
651:
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
1615:
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
942:
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
995:
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
1442:
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
1590:
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.
1763:
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.
1112:
Knowledge (XXG) 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 "Knowledge (XXG)" doesn't delete anything, the editors do.
1493:
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.
1434:
1616:
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.
532:
530:
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.
1704:
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.
1530:
537:. 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. --
83:
1290:
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. -
240:
1424:
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
1337:
1195:
1793:
1331:- 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
464:
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
1472:
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.
1432:
1341:
1071:
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
1608:
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
349:
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.
1135:
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
1436:
1139:
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
207:
202:
211:
48:. 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. –
535:
194:
1788:. This is a coatrack to criticise wind turbines. Any reliable sources on the topic of annoyance or health problems from wind turbines (e.g.
1017:
512:
498:
92:
1798:
1771:
1562:
1474:". 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.
1283:
1169:
1000:
969:
1392:
841:
776:
740:
617:
520:
122:
1711:
1642:
the material is ever published in mainstream journals, that will then help establish its notability. Your assertion that Pierpont is
1388:
1533:, that this AFD has been somewhat sidelined by a number of meatpuppets. Maybe an extra two days, up to nine, would be best. Thanks-
17:
772:
613:
594:
573:
991:
1287:
886:
736:
328:. Agree with nominator. Evidence for syndrome is anecdotal and exaggerated. No peer-reviewed medical journal articles on this.
424:
108:
1468:
1091:
Of course it doesn't because historically Knowledge (XXG) has deleted anything that like that. See what is happening now.
867:, is another question, but the phenomenon of people attributing health problems to wind turbines is itself fairly notable.
557:
Also a prior comment says most of the links are dead. That is simply false. I've checked and they all work for me.: -->
1604:
To answer your question, no, something can be deleted as non-notable and later become notable and have an article. Even
1529:
My feeling is that a few additional days on top of that would be helpful given the additional recent discovery, based on
1806:
1519:
1297:
837:
1824:
694:
400:
that the article should be reverted back to an earlier date and improved. There do seem to be plenty of sources to use.
36:
1810:
1779:
1757:
1735:
1719:
1697:
1680:
1656:
1625:
1599:
1573:
1542:
1524:
1503:
1483:
1456:
1412:
1375:
1353:
1321:
1302:
1270:
1252:
1232:
1210:
1181:
1153:
1122:
1100:
1084:
1043:
1029:
1012:
981:
956:
934:
906:
876:
824:
803:
759:
723:
706:
685:
646:
598:
546:
506:
477:
455:
433:
410:
387:
368:
337:
318:
293:
272:
59:
1795:
1227:
198:
81:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
1740:
Also, content-wise, we don't write articles on "emerging" material that haven't yet been covered in third party
990:
I agree that reliable references are needed and are pretty thin on the ground (the best I could come up with is
154:
1823:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1317:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1745:
1631:
1075:
doesn't even link to the article on wind turbines, nor vice versa. This is not what one would expect to see.
917:
think it has to go for lack of notability and unverifiability. The problem is that given the present lack of
787:
653:
516:
502:
1775:
1634:. Essentially, this means that we don't keep an article around based on the prediction that the material is
1802:
1767:
1707:
768:
755:
582:
561:
494:
138:
112:
1715:
1384:
1371:
1206:
57:
252:
97:
1222:
1106:
1096:
1072:
609:
590:
569:
190:
65:
1380:
1367:
1243:
article to an earlier version, before all of this questionable (albeit voluminous) material was added.
1092:
1020:
is an example of coverage in a national newspaper which may be the one mentioned in the above source.
833:
820:
764:
751:
634:
605:
586:
565:
1621:
1565:
about wind turbine syndrome and keeping it short to comply with undue weight and leaving it at that.
1408:
1349:
1248:
1118:
1080:
1039:
642:
451:
268:
728:
715:
677:
656:: this article contains no reliable content, and we can always create an article on the topic later
1313:
1266:
732:
719:
681:
542:
256:
1669:
356:
1609:
1595:
1173:
1145:
829:
816:
289:
144:
75:
1431:
of these searches turn up a single article with this syndrome name in any mainstream publication
1332:
1791:
1753:
1731:
1693:
1652:
1538:
1499:
1479:
1452:
1202:
977:
952:
930:
799:
702:
473:
406:
383:
364:
333:
314:
50:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1286:
with explicit deference to the regular editors there if they want to edit it out. This is no
1136:
922:
856:
429:
1513:
1291:
1177:
1149:
1025:
1008:
902:
872:
465:
260:
248:
1617:
1605:
1404:
1345:
1244:
1114:
1076:
1035:
638:
447:
275:
264:
1741:
1673:
918:
852:
661:
1677:
1262:
538:
1591:
419:
285:
1789:
1749:
1727:
1689:
1648:
1630:
Aside from the above apt response by Drawn Some, I'll add one additional response:
1558:
1534:
1495:
1475:
1448:
1165:
1068:
996:
973:
948:
944:
926:
890:
864:
795:
698:
469:
402:
379:
360:
346:
329:
310:
172:
160:
128:
228:
468:). Thirdly, the article is not well written as it exaggerates the case for WTS.
107:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
1566:
1140:
1021:
1004:
898:
868:
397:
749:
basis is being unravelled. This is a real phenomenon and must be retained.: -->
885:
There's also an argument for changing the title to something less POV such as
794:
the subject attains sufficient notability and verifiability to warrant it.
1164:
after reverting POV edits from the last few days merge this with either
247:
This appears to be a legitimate article at first glance but is actually
1034:
That article makes no mention of the neologism "Wind tunnel syndrome".
306:) who has pushed his comment in here at the top of the discussion (see
1425:
897:
seems to be used exclusively by proponents of this particular theory.
259:
and edited primarily by an account and an ISP account that may have a
1638:
notable. We only base these decisions on present notability. Thus,
1312:
Evidently notable. POV issues are addressed by editing not deletion.
863:. Whether it should remain as a separate article, or be merged with
1403:
Comment: another meatpuppet or sockpuppet that needs to be blocked.
1447:
has evidence of notability. If not, the page should be deleted.
921:
for the topic, it is not possible to write an article on it in an
1340:
before doing any vote counting. This debate was mentioned at the
713:
and humans. To delete is to deny the existence of a real problem.
1817:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
70:
1261:
See above entry by Cosmo0, dated 20:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC). --
490:
protect people and wildlife from an out of control industry.
101:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
466:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/74.71.80.249
1512:
AfDs run for seven days now - will that be sufficient? -
91:
among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
1531:
the recent sockpuppet investigation related to this AFD
1467:
The only mention of WTS in anything on google scholar (
860:
307:
304:
235:
224:
220:
216:
1338:
Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Grandma Moe
790:, and an article on the subject can later be created
303:
Kerberos is an anti-wind single purpose account (see
1067:This is such a fringe theory that the article on
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1827:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1676:ect... Not sure how discussion got this far...--
945:section of the wind turbine article on criticism
1440:General claims of ill effects of wind turbines
1196:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
121:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
1221:, not notable fringe theory, NPOV issues. --
697:unsupported by any peer-reviewed research.
1491:Request AFD extension for further comment:
1284:Environmental effects of wind power#Safety
1190:
637:is one of the creators of these articles.
95:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
1194:: This debate has been included in the
115:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
255:used to promote a theory and books by
1632:Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball
1463:In light of this I'll change back to
968:Its also a POV fork from the article
788:Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball
654:Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
660:it actually becomes notable through
1799:Environmental effects of wind power
1563:Environmental effects of wind power
1342:WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
1170:environmental effects of wind power
1001:environmental effects of wind power
970:environmental effects of wind power
24:
1288:electromagnetic hypersensitivity
418:per fringe/coi/nominator etc...
74:
887:Health effects of wind turbines
1:
111:on the part of others and to
1744:. Knowledge (XXG) is not a
1003:mention the subject at all.
891:Wind turbine#Health effects
1845:
388:22:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
369:20:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
338:20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
273:19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
1109:."' It is not there now.
576:) 14:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
1820:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1811:00:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
1780:22:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
1758:21:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
1736:21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
1720:21:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
1698:22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1681:20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1657:19:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1626:18:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1600:15:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1574:17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1559:Wind turbine#Criticisms
1543:19:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1525:20:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1504:19:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1484:20:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1457:19:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1413:15:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1376:13:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1354:13:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
1322:13:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
1303:04:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
1271:19:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
1253:19:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
1233:17:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
1211:06:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
1182:18:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
1166:Wind turbine#Criticisms
1154:04:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
1123:23:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
1101:23:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
1085:21:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
1044:23:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
1030:22:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
1013:22:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
997:Wind turbine#Criticisms
982:21:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
957:21:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
935:21:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
907:21:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
877:20:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
825:18:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
804:17:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
760:16:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
724:15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
707:14:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
686:13:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
647:15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
599:12:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
547:09:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
507:02:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
478:02:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
456:01:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
434:01:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
411:13:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
319:03:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
294:13:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
153:; accounts blocked for
123:single-purpose accounts
93:policies and guidelines
60:20:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
1801:. This is a POV fork.
1393:few or no other edits
1172:using NPOV language.
1107:wind turbine syndrome
1073:Wind turbine syndrome
895:Wind turbine syndrome
842:few or no other edits
777:few or no other edits
741:few or no other edits
618:few or no other edits
521:few or no other edits
191:Wind turbine syndrome
66:Wind turbine syndrome
1726:Another meatpuppet?
1516:(formerly Eldereft)
1395:outside this topic.
1294:(formerly Eldereft)
844:outside this topic.
779:outside this topic.
743:outside this topic.
620:outside this topic.
523:outside this topic.
261:conflict of interest
966:Additional comment:
105:by counting votes.
84:not a majority vote
1803:Fences and windows
1610:reptilian humanoid
851:and revert recent
786:do so. Otherwise
673:Weak keep, for now
377:as per nomination.
44:The result was
1831:
1797:) should go into
1770:comment added by
1710:comment added by
1557:a new section in
1523:
1396:
1301:
1231:
1223:Steven Fruitsmaak
1213:
1199:
853:original research
845:
780:
744:
622:
621:
602:
585:comment added by
564:comment added by
524:
497:comment added by
249:original research
186:
185:
182:
109:assume good faith
1836:
1822:
1782:
1742:reliable sources
1722:
1672:, coi, NOTVOTE,
1636:likely to become
1571:
1517:
1378:
1295:
1225:
1200:
919:reliable sources
827:
762:
726:
635:User:Grandma Moe
625:
603:
601:
579:
577:
558:
510:
509:
238:
232:
214:
180:
168:
152:
136:
117:
87:, but instead a
78:
71:
53:
34:
1844:
1843:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1825:deletion review
1818:
1765:
1705:
1606:fringe theories
1567:
1336:should look at
893:since the term
662:reliable source
580:
559:
492:
427:
234:
205:
189:
170:
158:
142:
126:
113:sign your posts
69:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1842:
1840:
1830:
1829:
1761:
1760:
1738:
1701:
1700:
1683:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1628:
1613:
1586:
1585:
1577:
1576:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1507:
1506:
1487:
1486:
1460:
1459:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1398:
1397:
1357:
1356:
1325:
1324:
1314:Colonel Warden
1306:
1305:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1256:
1255:
1236:
1235:
1215:
1214:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1103:
1088:
1087:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
985:
984:
960:
959:
937:
880:
879:
859:edits to e.g.
846:
807:
806:
782:
781:
745:
709:
688:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
624:
623:
556:
549:
525:
513:204.96.146.165
499:204.96.146.165
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
459:
458:
437:
436:
423:
413:
390:
371:
355:- non-notable
350:
340:
322:
321:
297:
296:
245:
244:
184:
183:
79:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1841:
1828:
1826:
1821:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1794:
1792:
1790:
1787:
1783:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1772:99.232.246.57
1769:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1684:
1682:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1664:
1663:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1614:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1588:
1587:
1582:
1579:
1578:
1575:
1572:
1570:
1564:
1560:
1555:
1552:
1551:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1521:
1515:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1492:
1489:
1488:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1466:
1462:
1461:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1441:
1437:
1435:
1433:
1430:
1426:
1423:
1420:
1419:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1366:
1363:
1359:
1358:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1334:
1330:
1327:
1326:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1308:
1307:
1304:
1299:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1278:
1277:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1241:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1229:
1224:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1188:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1111:
1110:
1108:
1104:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1069:wind turbines
1066:
1063:
1062:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
993:
989:
988:
987:
986:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
964:
963:
962:
961:
958:
954:
950:
946:
941:
938:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
915:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
884:
883:
882:
881:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
826:
822:
818:
815:
813:
809:
808:
805:
801:
797:
793:
789:
784:
783:
778:
774:
770:
766:
761:
757:
753:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
725:
721:
717:
714:
710:
708:
704:
700:
696:
695:fringe theory
692:
689:
687:
683:
679:
674:
671:
670:
663:
659:
655:
650:
649:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
629:
628:
627:
626:
619:
615:
611:
607:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
575:
571:
567:
563:
553:
550:
548:
544:
540:
536:
533:
529:
526:
522:
518:
514:
508:
504:
500:
496:
491:
487:
486:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
462:
461:
460:
457:
453:
449:
444:
441:
440:
439:
438:
435:
431:
426:
421:
417:
414:
412:
408:
404:
401:
399:
396:I agree with
395:
391:
389:
385:
381:
378:
376:
372:
370:
366:
362:
358:
357:fringe theory
354:
351:
348:
344:
341:
339:
335:
331:
327:
324:
323:
320:
316:
312:
308:
305:
302:
299:
298:
295:
291:
287:
283:
280:
279:
278:
277:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
257:Nina Pierpont
254:
250:
242:
237:
230:
226:
222:
218:
213:
209:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
187:
178:
174:
166:
162:
156:
150:
146:
140:
134:
130:
124:
120:
116:
114:
110:
104:
100:
99:
94:
90:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
72:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1819:
1816:
1785:
1784:
1762:
1746:crystal ball
1712:199.246.2.11
1702:
1688:non notable
1685:
1665:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1580:
1568:
1553:
1490:
1471:
1464:
1445:of this name
1444:
1439:
1428:
1421:
1381:WitnessofWTS
1368:WitnessofWTS
1361:
1360:
1328:
1309:
1279:
1239:
1218:
1203:WhatamIdoing
1191:
1161:
1132:
1130:
1129:
1064:
965:
939:
913:
894:
865:wind turbine
848:
811:
810:
791:
747:
711:
693:Non-notable
690:
672:
657:
630:
578:</small
551:
527:
488:
442:
415:
393:
392:
374:
373:
352:
347:wind turbine
342:
325:
300:
281:
246:
176:
164:
155:sockpuppetry
148:
137:; suspected
132:
118:
106:
102:
96:
88:
82:
52:Juliancolton
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1766:—Preceding
1706:—Preceding
1391:) has made
1093:Grandma Moe
840:) has made
775:) has made
765:Sleepexpert
752:Sleepexpert
739:) has made
616:) has made
606:Grandma Moe
587:Grandma Moe
581:—Preceding
566:Grandma Moe
560:—Preceding
519:) has made
493:—Preceding
1618:Drawn Some
1405:Drawn Some
1346:EdJohnston
1245:Withnail68
1115:Drawn Some
1077:Drawn Some
1036:Drawn Some
639:Drawn Some
448:Yardleyman
430:WP Physics
276:Drawn Some
265:Drawn Some
89:discussion
1678:Unionhawk
1670:WP:FRINGE
1581:Question:
1263:Crowsnest
925:manner.
914:Response:
861:this edit
729:Wiggyjane
716:Wiggyjane
678:Schrandit
539:Crowsnest
253:synthesis
145:canvassed
139:canvassed
98:consensus
1768:unsigned
1708:unsigned
1644:planning
1592:Kerberos
1470:) says "
1422:Comment:
1389:contribs
1333:WP:MEDRS
838:contribs
773:contribs
737:contribs
614:contribs
595:contribs
583:unsigned
574:contribs
562:unsigned
495:unsigned
443:Comment.
425:κοντριβς
420:Headbomb
286:Kerberos
241:View log
177:username
171:{{subst:
165:username
159:{{subst:
149:username
143:{{subst:
133:username
127:{{subst:
1750:Locke9k
1728:Locke9k
1690:Dlabtot
1649:Locke9k
1535:Locke9k
1496:Locke9k
1476:Smartse
1449:Locke9k
1065:Comment
974:Locke9k
949:Locke9k
940:Comment
927:Locke9k
796:Locke9k
699:ukexpat
631:Comment
470:Johnfos
403:Smartse
380:Smartse
361:Bearian
330:Johnfos
311:Johnfos
208:protect
203:history
141:users:
1786:Delete
1686:Delete
1666:Delete
1569:Sifaka
1554:Delete
1465:Delete
1329:Delete
1240:Delete
1219:Delete
1174:Tspine
1146:Tspine
1141:Cosmo0
1022:Cosmo0
1005:Cosmo0
899:Cosmo0
869:Cosmo0
830:7brats
817:7brats
691:Delete
416:Delete
398:Cosmo0
375:Delete
353:Delete
343:Delete
326:Delete
236:delete
212:delete
46:delete
1674:WP:RS
1520:cont.
1298:cont.
1280:Merge
1228:Reply
1162:Merge
301:Note:
239:) – (
229:views
221:watch
217:links
119:Note:
16:<
1807:talk
1776:talk
1754:talk
1732:talk
1716:talk
1694:talk
1668:per
1653:talk
1622:talk
1596:talk
1539:talk
1500:talk
1480:talk
1453:talk
1429:None
1409:talk
1385:talk
1372:talk
1362:KEEP
1350:talk
1318:talk
1310:Keep
1267:talk
1249:talk
1207:talk
1192:Note
1178:talk
1150:talk
1137:NPOV
1133:Keep
1119:talk
1097:talk
1081:talk
1040:talk
1026:talk
1018:Here
1009:talk
999:nor
992:this
978:talk
953:talk
931:talk
923:NPOV
903:talk
873:talk
855:and
849:Keep
834:talk
821:talk
812:Keep
800:talk
769:talk
756:talk
733:talk
720:talk
703:talk
682:talk
643:talk
610:talk
591:talk
570:talk
552:Keep
543:talk
534:and
528:Keep
517:talk
503:talk
474:talk
452:talk
407:talk
394:Keep
384:talk
365:talk
334:talk
315:talk
290:talk
282:Keep
269:talk
251:and
225:logs
199:talk
195:edit
1561:or
1514:2/0
1292:2/0
1282:to
1168:or
889:or
857:POV
309:).
173:csp
169:or
161:csm
129:spa
103:not
1809:)
1778:)
1756:)
1748:.
1734:)
1718:)
1696:)
1655:)
1640:if
1624:)
1598:)
1541:)
1502:)
1482:)
1455:)
1411:)
1387:•
1379:—
1374:)
1352:)
1344:.
1320:)
1269:)
1251:)
1209:)
1198:.
1180:)
1152:)
1121:)
1099:)
1083:)
1042:)
1028:)
1011:)
980:)
972:.
955:)
933:)
905:)
875:)
836:•
828:—
823:)
802:)
792:if
771:•
763:—
758:)
735:•
727:—
722:)
705:)
684:)
658:if
645:)
633:-
612:•
604:—
597:)
593:•
572:•
545:)
511:—
505:)
476:)
454:)
432:}
428:–
409:)
386:)
367:)
359:.
336:)
317:)
292:)
271:)
263:.
227:|
223:|
219:|
215:|
210:|
206:|
201:|
197:|
179:}}
167:}}
157::
151:}}
135:}}
125::
56:|
1805:(
1774:(
1752:(
1730:(
1714:(
1692:(
1651:(
1620:(
1612:.
1594:(
1537:(
1522:)
1518:(
1498:(
1478:(
1451:(
1407:(
1383:(
1370:(
1348:(
1316:(
1300:)
1296:(
1265:(
1247:(
1230:)
1226:(
1205:(
1201:—
1176:(
1148:(
1143:.
1131:*
1117:(
1095:(
1079:(
1038:(
1024:(
1007:(
976:(
951:(
929:(
901:(
871:(
832:(
819:(
798:(
767:(
754:(
731:(
718:(
701:(
680:(
641:(
608:(
589:(
568:(
541:(
515:(
501:(
472:(
450:(
422:{
405:(
382:(
363:(
332:(
313:(
288:(
267:(
243:)
233:(
231:)
193:(
181:.
175:|
163:|
147:|
131:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
