Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grounding (earthing) culture


 * 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. I see a stronger consensus to delete than to merge, but if anyone actively wants to take up the task of merging it, I'll restore for them to do so. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Grounding (earthing) culture

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Poorly sourced (in quality, more so than quantity) article, fails WP:GNG. Possibly also contains WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOXing. Earlier A10 & G11 speedy was rejected, but I feel I would be in dereliction of duty if I didn't at least put forward this AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:IMPERFECT, quality issues are not a reason to delete. Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.".  The sources such as this review demonstrate that the topic is notable and so there's plenty of scope for further work.  Note that we also have earthing therapy which currently redirects to nature therapy which doesn't say much about it and so this would be a better target.  There's also barefoot which also doesn't say much about this.  Me, I'm generating  lots of static in the current weather and that's certainly not good for electronic devices.  Maybe I should give this a try... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to clarify, it's not 'quality issues' of the article itself why I nominated this; my point was that although there seem to be plenty of references, their quality is suspect. Having said which, if this nomination ends up providing relief from your static problems, then at least something good will have come of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a (poorly written) essay that is already covered in our pseudoscience article here which was merged last year. Praxidicae (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nature therapy which addresses grounding in its lead but fails to mention it in the body of the article, so this would fill that gap. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - adequately covered in Nature therapy, there's an absolute lack of any decent sources on this subject and it'd be pretty hard to actually write much about. -- a they/them &#124; argue &#124; contribs 18:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Already covered at Nature therapy. The fact that there is not much on it in that article is simply due to the fact that there are so few legitimate sources on this WP:FRINGE pseudoscience.  There is nothing of worth here that would be appropriate to merge, and the article title would not make for a useful Redirect term.  Rorshacma (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (I was the admin who declined the speedy on this, purely on procedural grounds.) Somewhat surprised to find myself leaning keep or merge. There do appear to be some sources on this topic; Andrew Davidson came up with one review above, and there's also another mainstream review. Fwiw, there's also a review in an Elsevier alternative medicine journal Explore that has been criticised for publishing BS, but does claim to do peer review, as well as a research paper in an open-access sports science journal which cites lots of mainstream sources; the PubMed sidebar also links a number of complementary medicine journals that might or might not meet MedRS standards but have made it into PubMed. There are a few other sources in the merged earthing therapy article's history that Jytdog removed as being primary, but to my mind contribute to the topic's notability. I think a lot of the feeling about this falls under the "I don't like it" banner. That said, the current article is far from neutral and contains apparent original research; merging to nature therapy is a possibility. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge Fringe material is/can be further covered at nature therapy. All the books and journals cited are authored by the same few people including Chevalier, Sinitra, and Ober, the former having authored a review of several of his own articles. This does not demonstrate an substantially independent or broadly investigated area of pseudoscience. Reywas92Talk 02:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nature therapy per Schazjmd: which addresses grounding in its lead but fails to mention it in the body of the article, so this would fill that gap.  // Timothy ::  talk  17:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete- This concept is clearly a load of woo-woo, which is obvious from the sources presented so far. Although Wikipedia does, and should, have articles about pseudoscience, this is only possible when reliable sources discuss it as pseudoscience. What we have here is a wacky woo subject covered in promotional fringe publications. The reliable independent sources that treat this subject as pseudoscience don't seem to exist. It would be a disservice to our readers to signal-boost this kookery. Reyk YO! 17:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Per ... they said it perfectly. Having articles about total nonsense fringe theories is fine, if they have some notability. I've done a lot of reading on pseudoscience and this one is new to me. If anything, perhaps it should be merged into Electromagnetic hypersensitivity though the sources used here are pretty poor and I still think Delete is best. Also, the writer(s) of this article appear to be drawing conclusions or WP:SYNTHing.   M r A urelius R   Talk! 21:39, 2 December 2020 (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.