Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depression and natural therapies (2nd nomination)


 * 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, any subsequent merger is an editorial issue.  Sandstein  17:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Depression and natural therapies
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Since the first AfD, the consensus is that the article is indeed a WP:POVFORK. In response to discussions after the AfD on the article talk page and on Talk:Major_depressive_disorder, it was renamed to Treatment of depression and it was merged with the content from Major_depressive_disorder. An editor that has yet to participate in any of these discussions has reverted the renaming and reverted all edits involving merging of information from Major depressive disorder. Treatment of depression has since been restored, so the only question left is what to do with the POV fork. Ronz (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I participated in the first AFD and subsequent discussions. No consensus for the recent move/merge was established and Ronz described this action himself as bold.  The article currently has a clear focus upon natural remedies or therapies for depression and this topic is well-supported by numerous sources.  Since it is accepted that the main article on depression is too long, spin-offs such as this are indicated.  This article and its theme predates Ronz's later rival article Treatment of depression and so, if there is a new fork here, it is Ronz's version.  Since there appears to be much to be said on this topic, deletion is quite inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note also that Treatment of depression plagiarizes much of this material which has been copied by means of cut/paste in violation of the GFDL. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The point being that the deletion proposed would be improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I was unable to find any of your contributions to any of the subsequent discussions. Maybe you could provide a diff or timestamp? --Ronz (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Depression and natural therapies for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. So you weren't involved in any of the discussions about merging the article, or creating Treatment of depression, or otherwise commenting on anything that led up to the creation of the "bold" editing, correct? --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * merge into Treatment of depression Sceptre (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is way too much information in this article to call for a merge. Now that Colonel Warden as added additonal sections, from here on out it's probably vandalism to call for even merge.  Even if WP:AGF good faith is assumed, I believe there is something wrong with editors or admins taking this WP:AFD nomination seriously. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "There is way too much information in this article to call for a merge" The article is small and easily merged. Most of the information is already duplicated elsewhere.  Further, much, if not all, of the information in the article are just viewpoints that have no balancing viewpoints as required for NPOV.  --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep First, I'd like to say that this article is not a POVfork. A few months ago I went through it and carefully weeded out any statements that implied a point of view, and made the article as impartial as an article can be. I agree that originally it wasn't impartial enough; the reason was that it was my first article and it takes a while to get the hang of things around here. But now the article is impartial. I have asked Ronz, who seems to be the most stubborn critic, to point out where the POV is in the article, but he has declined to do so.


 * I have noticed that some people around here seem to be biased against natural therapies, and this seems to be behind much of the criticism, but even if one thinks natural therapies are all rubbish, they are still around and they are a valid subject for an article in an encyclopedia. Whether one agrees with them or not is irrelevant. The purpose of articles in this encyclopedia is to tell people about a particular subject, not to agree or disagree with it. Personally, I don't think it really matters whether the article is kept in its present form or merged with an article on the treatment of depression, but it is not POV. I am happy to apologise to everyone if the original article wasn't as impartial as it should have been, but it's impartial now (unless someone's been changing it since I rewrote it).


 * Sardaka (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to admin: This vote appears to be Keep or merge given "I don't think it really matters whether the article is kept in its present form or merged with an article on the treatment of depression" above.
 * Could you give some rationale as to why you don't think this is a POVFORK, either here or on the talk page? NPOV problems are resolved by balancing points of view, not simply removing any "out any statements that implied a point of view" as identified by an editor. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but re-edit to remove the strong POV bias in favor of natural therapies, as shown in the lede paragraph,  in misclassification--exercise a a therapy for depression is mainstream medicine, and to add statements explaining the very limited nature of the evidence for effectivenesss of some of the therapies, instead of talking about an "effective range" of therapies that may not actually have sound evidence for being effective. DGG (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Treatment of depression ... which I had thought was the talkpage consensus up until this weekend. Like it or not, marketers frequently emblazon products with Natural! or All natural! as a selling point, which by implication if not intent puts this article in the 'doctors know only how to burn, poison, and cut' camp. This unnecessarily gives the article the appearance of a POV slant irrespective of the good work neutralizing the tone of the article itself. Alternative treatments to depression (as in Alternative medicine) is an option as a different way to organize the subarticles, but one that my fabulous psychic powers predict would swiftly devolve into an unending discussion of whether 'that which works' is inherently medicine rather than alternative medicine; also, diet, exercise, and lifestyle changes have always been mainstream. Further, many of the sources establishing natural as an organizational category conflate natural and alternative, but we can do better than that. A much cleaner solution is simply to have the one spin-out from Major depressive disorder and duly describe each treatment and practice there. Fuller treatments of each topic belong at the respective articles or sections. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * merge into Treatment of depression as it should be a subsection of that article. Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Firefly. There is a lot here and I am not sure that a merge would suffice. However, weak merge if Keep fails. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:01, 27 August 2008 (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.