Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nature exposure sufficiency insufficiency


 * 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Boing! said Zebedee, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Nature exposure sufficiency insufficiency

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a work of WP:SYN about which there is basically one source, available full text here, which is: This WP page was created by who has been spamming wikilinks to this page, and refspam to the Medical Hypotheses article, in many other articles, which is how I became aware of this. It appears to me that this page in WP is being abused to try to popularize a pet/net theory, and this is not what WP is for. (There are no refs in Pubmed about this.) This page is not a Wikipedia article and should be deleted.--Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC) (correction Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC))
 * a) published in Medical Hypotheses, a non-peer-reviewed journal that we generally avoid, except to make statements like "X wrote Y";
 * b) the first source in this WP page, and this WP page basically replicates that paper, even down to following its sourcing and the order in which sources are used; and
 * c) authored Salvatore B. Durante and another person.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have read this article several times over the last few hours with increasing bewilderment. As per the nominator, it appears to a pet theory and at best original research. It seems to be a variant on alternative therapy involving nature and signally fails WP:MEDRS. Wholly non-encyclopaedic.  Velella  Velella Talk 23:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed with the above. Even Google Scholar, the most likely to include non-reputable sources and citations, shows only the single source from Durante with no citations with the term "Nature exposure sufficiency". I would have considered a redirect had it had some minor secondary discussion that fell within Nature deficit disorder, but this looks more like a pet theory issue rather than just similar terminology overlap for the time being. If this term gets more attention, it'll show up in citations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted, WP:G7, at request of original author. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2017 (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.