Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nature therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to expand on my closing rationale. This section has been added after this discussion closed. This is obviously a passionate topic for many. While the overall consensus was keep, there's also a consensus that there's much needed work to be done with the article. Keeping in mind that AFD is not cleanup, let's use the momentum and consensus established here to improve the article like a lot of editors have already been doing since this discussion started. In summary, the consensus is to keep, but also clean up and improve the article. Further, content discussions and article issues need to be discussed on the talk page for the article. Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nature therapy

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Nature therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This isn't a thing. Whole article is sourced to a leaflet from "Mind" in the UK, and nowhere do we learn what this "Therapy" does. (probably because there is no such thing.)

The whole thing can be summarised by the following phrase, popularised by my mother, Roxanna the dog, who said - "Why don't you go outside and get some air, it'll be good for you." Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is quite a difficult call, because the article seems to have been created as an overview of a number of related topics, some of which already have articles and appear notable themselves, so the question of whether the article should exist seems to depends on whether there is value in having a overview article, rather than just on GNG. Of course, the article is badly in need of clean-up: the entire section A Notable Study, for example, makes medical claims based on a piece of synthesis around a single study, and needs excising, should the article be kept. --RexxS (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a range of things, being a broad topic. It's clearly notable as there are many books written about it, such as this. And it's not difficult to find respectable sources for the medical aspects such as this systematic review. Andrew D. (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, once again I find you blatantly arguing for OR, this time on an article with medical implications. You clearly put so little thought into the above !vote that you didn't even notice that this was a cut-and-paste move created by a sock for the purpose of advertising -- do you at least agree that the page should be moved back to its original title to preserve the pre-2018 page history? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the current content – about 75% – has been created by Camimitchell35 for Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Eureka College/PSY 101 General Psychology (Spring 2019). As this is an educational project with professional supervision, we should not disrupt this good faith activity. Andrew D. (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, thank you for this comment. I tremendously appreciate this and your evaluation of the information included within the article.Camimitchell35 (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to doc James on the article talk page, he merged forest therapy to this article. No comment on the fact that there is no attempt to define what conditions this “therapy” is meant to treat in the article OR any of the “sources”! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This content content fork was created by Wasserlurchi (talk · contribs) a few hours before he was blocked for socking in order to create said content fork.[4] The fact that after multiple speedy deletions of this article in the past this is apparently the best that those who want this article could come up with heavily implies that userfying/draftifying would not be much good, but maybe User:Andrew Davidson wants to take a stab at it? It would certainly be better than repeating the same old irrelevant arguments he pulled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Lady (character) and several dozen other AFDs where WP:BROAD applied just as little as it did here, and I'd really like to see what he means by that -- inserting a bunch of OR about how walking in the woods is good for your health, cited to sources that don't mention either "nature therapy" or "forest bathing"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: I was trying to figure out who was responsible for the atrocious/anachronistic "stealth OR" in the lead and found this. Obviously you can't be blamed for merging bad content written by other editors years earlier, but it got me wondering about the cut-and-paste move issue: you're an admin who could just delete the fork and move the original page, so if you thought this was the right title why not just do that? Apologies in advance if you don't remember. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nature therapy already existed (yes I know only for a few days). But it is a broader term than "forest bathing" so merged that here. I have no concerns with this being aggressively trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included by Andrew Davidson in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the article in the Japan Times. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2018/05/02/our-lives/stressed-bathing-woods-just-doctor-ordered/#.XK9z3TBKhxA The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this should be linked to the Nature Therapy article, as it seems associated to the topic. In Germany some towns are categorized as health resorts and can charge a tax for being "healthy" for its citizens. (paraphrased) Luftkurort .--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I brought The Japan Times to RSN for MEDRS purposes last year, and it was rejected. JT can't even get basic facts about Japanese cultural history right (as was highlighted with with the Reiwa debacle last week[5][6][7] -- I actually didn't know until just know that someone apparently called the Konjaku Monogatarishū Japan's "oldest collection of stories", apparently never having heard of the Nihon Ryōiki or the super-famous Tales of Ise), so they definitely cannot be used as a reliable source in medical articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely unrelated to this discussion, but I've recently had people run over my comments and nitpick any errors or "misrepresentations" I made, even obvious mistakes (this has a tendency of happening on AFDs right before they are closed); I've also been repeatedly criticized for supposedly not being willing to admit I'm wrong. So I'm proactively admitting fault and issuing a correction. That said, it's completely off-topic for this AFD, so collapsing.
Reading a bit more closely, it looks like that article originally said The "Konjaku Monogatari" is Japan's oldest collection of stories: the tag preview says The "Konjaku Monogatari" is one of Japan's oldest collection of stories while the live version of the article correctly says The “Konjaku Monogatari” is one of Japan’s oldest collections of stories, and I'd be willing to bet it was corrected in two stages. Yeah, it's possible that The "Konjaku Monogatari" is one of Japan's oldest collection of stories was the original wording and was simply a misprint, but in my experience the JT editors a lot better at catching English grammatical errors than they are at catching factual errors -- more likely, someone noticed the factual error after it was published, and it was corrected hastily, with no one noticing that the correction included a grammatical error; an obvious grammatical error in the lead sentence of an article that was submitted for publication and went through an editorial process seems less likely. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I have been working with this article extensively and using it as grounds to find more information about the subject (specifically for a class that I am in), and it would be tremendously helpful if the article could remain.107.152.3.3 (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nature_therapy&oldid=893251778"