Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nature therapy


 * 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)
 * 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. Dus</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 02:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Nature therapy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 12:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Most of the current content – about 75% – has been created by Camimitchell35 for 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)
 * 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)


 * Comment - This was originally Forest therapy. It encompasses a broad variety of subforms of therapy.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep per . As they say, WP:NOTCLEANUP and a case for WP:TNT hasn't been made. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep TreeHugger recently had an article about this talking about the research done at the University of Michigan  on how they measure how long in nature someone needs to be by monitoring "changes in two physiological biomarkers of stress – salivary cortisol and alpha-amylase".  Its a real thing, it has been studied, and there is news coverage about it.   D r e a m Focus  16:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * keep per above two editors rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep "forest bathing" redirects to this article and is covered at other language wikis with many more sources there, which could be copied as needed (example). This concept is more popular in Japan and the continent but might be unfamiliar to some. Per WP:BEFORE. -- Green  C  21:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Worthy article well sourced and WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * TNT delete WP:MEDRS applies here, and per the sources cited by User:Headbomb this really should be better written, or not included as part of the encyclopedia. I wouldn't be opposed to userfying or draftifying. Even if this page is kept, it should be redirected to its original title,, to preserve the page history; Wikipedia doesn't look kindly on content forks or copy-paste moves or whatever this was. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This content content fork was created by a few hours before he was blocked for socking in order to create said content fork. 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">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)


 * Keep as per others. Needs work, but there's already evidence of sufficient good quality citations to meet WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The journal papers by Oh, Hansen and Kamioka are sufficient to establish notability of nature therapy/forest therapy. The article still requires clean-up. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I did see a journal or newspaper article published last year, wherein a doctor stated the benefits of Nature therapy. I'll search for it....and post it shortly.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , don't bring that. It (very likely) will not qualify WP:MEDRS and is as useful as not being printed at all. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 -- 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)


 * 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)


 * Keep it. There are plenty of sources explaining the topic, so I think the article is worth keeping.107.152.3.3 (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep - It needs work, not deletion. The range of topics covered are notable. --  Dane <b style="color: #00AC1D;">talk </b> 04:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - In its current form, the article is a guide leading to articles on a variety of notable forms of therapy. If some of them are not notable, they can be nominated for deletion.  This is sort of a disambiguation list, and satisfies notability and other guidelines.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.