Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Pierpont


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nina Pierpont

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BIO for scientists and authors both. The article and a sister article Wind Turbine Syndrome are used to promote a theory and books by the subject of the article and are edited primarily by an account and an ISP account that may have a conflict of interest. Drawn Some (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with nominator. Promotional article based on flimsy sources. Much overlapping content with Wind turbine syndrome. Johnfos (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. Smartse (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a legitimate doctor with very precise and painstaking research, also one of many, who is saying industrial wind turbines are hurting some people. That research is verified here in Ontario. Over 53 people have come forward complaining of adverse health effects from living in proximity to these turbines. Wind companies are notorious for discounting any people who come forward with problems, stating that there are no health problems from wind turbines. They are wrong and thank goodness Dr. Pierpont has decided to believe the symptoms people have come forward with. The tobacco industry also denied any problems for a long time as did the manufacturers of leaded gas, asbestos insulation and thalidomyde. The reality is that the problem exists in spite of wind company denial and victims of the wind turbines are being re-victimized by this denial. restoring comment by Funnyfarm.ca (talk) (this does not represent the opinion of TheFeds) — Funnyfarm.ca (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Even a "legitimate doctor with very precise and painstaking research" may not be notable. Drawn Some (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * kEEP You have got to be kidding me.   This is nothing short of suppression of the truth.   There is NOTHING in that article that is not true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandma Moe (talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)  — Grandma Moe (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment User:Grandma Moe is one of the creators of the article. Drawn Some (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete non-notable fringe theorist, promotional. ukexpat (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment When 'legitimate' and 'suppression of the truth' are brought into an argument, I tend to look for the angle... Whatever the 'truth' here, Wikipedia is not a vehicle (leaded or unleaded) for campaigning. It is the notability of the article subject that counts, not the justice of it, or the honesty of the campaigner. I am concerned that all the references appear to be from windturbinesyndrome.com, which I find hard to believe is a neutral third party source. (I haven't managed to get into these references yet - they don't seem to want to load.) The publication mentioned is not yet published, bringing WP:CRYSTAL into play, possibly. Peridon (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment All of the references are to Nina Pierpont's website advertising her book or to pdfs of articles or talks she has authored. None of them are unrelated to her.  This is clearly a promotional article. Drawn Some (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for promotion and non-notability. Tspine (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lacks reliable sources to show notability. There is a related AfD about the article on Wind Turbine Syndrome, which has the same problems. All the external links included here are to an activist website. If any of this material had survived the conventional scientific publication process, it would be more credible. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - the Strong comes from the need for the Not a ballot tag. anyways, non-notable endorsement, lacking reliable sources.--Unionhawk Talk 23:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.