Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salutogenesis


 * 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. A potential merge can be discussed on article talkpage, but with the sources and arguments provided, this is a pretty uncontentious Keep. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Salutogenesis

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Tagged as essay-like and lacking proper sourcing since 2009, not rectified. This is basically 50% dictionary definition and 50% POV fork. "Salutogenesis" is a bullshit term akin to "wellness" used by SCAMmers because it sounds sciencey. It has no actual objective meaning. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Needs filling out, but as there are about 3,500 Google scholar references available (and another 850 for salutogenetic), this should not be a problem. Mainstream journals such as Social Science & Medicine, Journal of Epidemiology and community, South African Journal of Psychology,  British Journal of Health Psychology, and Journal of Advanced Nursing have all had articles using the term. Nature magazine has published six articles that reference the term: (5), (6th) . This is clearly now a quite well established medical concept. hgilbert (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - While I had never heard of this concept before, it is indeed the subject of multiple instances of independently published coverage. See, for example, THIS PIECE from the International Electronic Journal of Health Education. Whether the concept is useful or diversionary is a matter of opinion; in terms of notability this seems a clear GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Carrite and Hgilbert. Francl (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Carrite and Hgilbert. Plus, even if it would be true that it has "no actual objective meaning" just this kind of criticism against the concept can be mentioned in the article about it.  Lova Falk     talk   17:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, adequate sourcing is required to present the topic neutrally; i.e put it in place with respect to the mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per the others; it sounds rather odd, but you can't argue with the multiple journal articles that have been dug up since this nomination was created. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with Aaron Antonovsky. Hgilbert mentioned nature so I went and checked the links; one mentions "salutogenetic" once in connection with Antonovsky; only one of the search results had much coverage: of the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, it introduces it as specific to Antonovsky. The other coverage as well discuss it in connection to Antonovsky. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * article mentions Antonovsky as the originator of the concept, but goes on to mention a number of others who have developed this further. This and other articles clearly describe salutogenesis as having an independent existence as a concept now. To stretch a point, salutogenesis : Antonovsky :: evolution : Darwin. hgilbert (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge (and keep article, as I stated above). A Google search of salutogenesis without Antonovsky gives more than 60 000 results. The concept is used widely without mentioning Antonovsky.  Lova Falk     talk   14:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a useful metric in a deletion discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2012 (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.