Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green exercise


 * 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   no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Green exercise

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This page appears to be based on a neologism linked to a single reference (Jules Pretty / University of Essex). It there is little content within the article, and the article has been present for some time now. It appears to based on a term rather than a unique concept. The Wikiversity entry is also based around the same reference. A pubmed search found one additional article using the term, and a google search finds a couple of uses, but often related to the original reference. I'm not sure this article can be expanded without OR, and may be better merged somewhere else? I'm transferring this note from the article talk page in case the page creator doesnt have time to get to this discussion (Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)) :
 * in my view there is now sufficient info at Green exercise to demonstrate that the topic is valid although obviously the current WP article is a stub in need of development. -- Jtneill - Talk 02:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Even if it is notable the article is now just a dictionary definition.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete While it's easy to throw in the adjective "green" on just about anything, most of those terms are not notable. I'm not sure how one is benefiting the environment by doing one's exercise outside, nor why anyone thinks that's a novel idea of some sort.  One might as well call going on a picnic "green dining".  Mandsford (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Green dining would probably need to be quite vigorous to be considered green exercise, although gardening is generally considered to be a type of green exercise. This comment would be good for discussion at Talk:Green exercise. -- Jtneill - Talk 12:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've added some more refs and a little more initial intro material. I've also invited researchers from the University of Essex who are leaders in the area to contribute to the article. -- Jtneill - Talk 12:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It still feel it is a neologism - I can only find one reference (Neill) that is independent of the Essex group. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How many references do you think are necessary to demonstrate the validity of such a concept? -- Jtneill - Talk 12:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have similar concerns e.g., about articles such as Green Gym and Green prescription? -- Jtneill - Talk 12:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is not the number of references, it's whether the term is a neologism or a developed tangible concept. Green Gym and Green Prescription both refer to tangible programs rather than general ideas, so I'm happy to keep those.  Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article has several references such as Pretty 2003, not just one. The draft of Mackay and Neill shows a heap of references. The concept refers to Attention restoration theory which is well established by famous names in psychology. Of course this article can be considered a stub and needs work. -- Rixs (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The references I've found referring to 'Green exercise' have either been by Pretty (et al) or Neill (including within Neill's reference list). I'm still not convinced it better under WP:Avoid neologisms as a wiktionary page rather than Wikipedia page.  Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per Rixs. -- Jtneill - Talk 10:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep'  the EB article is sufficient evidence. We are a superset of the topics in other encyclopedias. That a responsible tertiary publication covers it in a major way is proof of notability.  DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete (double vote} I'm still not convinced.  The EB article is a complete reproduction of a pre-existing publication (from the Biologist), and I am unable to find a reference that is independent of the authors Pretty or Neill (including the wikipedia article), so am not convinced the term is a notable neologism. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't !vote for your own nomination like this as it may be considered deceptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is not a neologism and even if it were this would not be a reason to delete. The topic is covered by numerous sources such as New Scientist.  Any imperfections in the current draft may be addressed by ordinary editing per our editing policy.   I have added a citation to the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Question Why was there no discussion about concerns with this article on its discussion page before the nomination for deletion? -- Jtneill - Talk 16:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment @Clovis Sangrail tx for clarification. Could you point me to WP policy about neologism? FYI, I started a stub section on Green exercise to document examples of green exercise programs. -- Jtneill - Talk 16:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NEO is a style guideline. Its point is that we shouldn't use words which will not be understood.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 *  Keep (double vote} as I said before, in case my vote needs to be counted agian. -- Rixs (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or rename(see below). Pretty 2003 is a primary source: "We believe, therefore, there is a synergistic benefit in adopting physical activities whilst at the same time being directly exposed to nature. We call this `green exercise’." The so-called EB article was written by the same authors in the new section of the site that allows Wikipedia-like editing (see ). Without these references, the subject seems to lack significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are abundant references which provide significant coverage in reliable secondary sources - one simply has to browse the search links above to immediately find sources such as Key Concepts in Public Health. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is green exercise a type of exercise that is environmentally friendly? Or is the term synonymous with outdoor exercise? I don't know, because the term is a neologism. Most of the Google Books results contain trivial and somewhat conflicting mentions. Search for potentially defining "green exercise is" or "green exercise"+definition and you'll only get a couple of irrelevant or trivial hits. A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing. The book you just mentioned doesn't seem to do that. It only appears to use the term twice or thrice, in the chapter about Public Health and Natural Environment. — Rankiri (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is just one of many sources. Some of these sources are of book length and have the phrase in their title.  Colonel Warden (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please recall WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. I see much more Google Book results for "good exercise", "rigorous exercise" or "why exercise?", but that doesn't make them acceptable article titles subjects. — Rankiri (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The exact title of the article is unimportant here because
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so we are concerned with topics not words
 * Title changes are performed by the move function which is available to any editor and does not require deletion.
 * So, please address the topic, not the wording of the title. If you do not understand this title, then please refer to the lead of the article which defines it as "physical exercise undertaken in relatively natural environments". Colonel Warden (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I corrected my previous comment. — Rankiri (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, the lead sentence is not supported by valid sources. You think it refers to exercising in nature; I think that it refers to environmentally conscious exercising. That's exactly why we have WP:NEO. — Rankiri (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a difference without a distinction. The word green is well chosen in this context to indicate both the presence of nature and the ecological aspects.  For example, the source cited above gives gardening as an example and makes the point that this combines physical exercise with natural surroundings and gives mental benefits not just because of these but also because of the environmental benefit of being productive in improving the garden.  Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. The Oxford dictionary defines the adjective as
 * of the colour between blue and yellow in the spectrum; coloured like grass.
 * covered with grass or other vegetation.
 * (of a plant or fruit) young or unripe. ?(of food, wood, pottery, or leather) in its untreated or original state; not cured, seasoned, fired, etc.
 * inexperienced or naive.
 * pale and sickly-looking.
 * (usu. Green) concerned with or supporting protection of the environment as a political principle.
 * (of a ski run) of the lowest level of difficulty.
 * You can show me which of the above definitions indicates both the presence of nature and the ecological aspects, or we can stop arguing semantics and return to the fact that that the article's references don't contain enough direct nontrivial coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Green energy redirects to Sustainable energy. Perhaps we can get rid of the ambiguity by moving the page to Outdoor exercise? — Rankiri (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Outdoor exercise redirects to Physical exercise which is too general. Even outdoor exercise does not convey the essence of the topic which is exercise in natural surroundings - a park or wood rather than a city street or car park, say.  Related topics which are closer in meaning include biophilia, nature deficit disorder and ecopsychology. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2010 (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.