Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mental health promotion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mental health promotion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This may be a notable subject; as written, however, it's merely an essay. We may as well start from scratch, if at all. Biruitorul Talk 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The concept is valid, the goal is noble. The term, however, seems to be a WP:NEO, and the nom is right that the article is purely an essay. A pretty good one, but an essay nonetheless. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 23:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite: an essay that needs wikification (the deletion policy suggests copy-editing rather than deleting), but these could be useful sources (apart from the ones already used): PMID 18211677 PMID 18201161 PMID 15966248 PMID 10184883 PMID 10177039 . As previous editor mentions: well-intended, valid concept for an article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you're volunteering to rewrite it, "keep and rewrite" is functionally equivalent to "keep and plaster with templates indefinitely". Looie496 (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, there is no deadline in this project, and willing to improve an article is not a prerequisite for adding your opinion in an AfD debate. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of a rewrite or not, how is "mental health promotion" itself a notable term? That is a major issue, regardless of content. My estimation is that this would be wp:neo regardless of content, making a rewrite meaningless. You have to rewrite AND retitle to something else, which is basically, a delete. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this a neologism when this exact term is used in so many reputable references that I'm referring to? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, after looking I see it is a pretty common term, used both formally and informally. I still can't see keeping as an essay. If someone wants to reduce it to a stub and tag it as such (ie: delete essay material) then I could be pursueded to change my mind on delete. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this a neologism when this exact term is used in so many reputable references that I'm referring to? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of a rewrite or not, how is "mental health promotion" itself a notable term? That is a major issue, regardless of content. My estimation is that this would be wp:neo regardless of content, making a rewrite meaningless. You have to rewrite AND retitle to something else, which is basically, a delete. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, there is no deadline in this project, and willing to improve an article is not a prerequisite for adding your opinion in an AfD debate. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, with permission to re-create with better content. The term is sufficiently notable, see for example this or this. However, it is not encyclopedic to leave junk articles sitting around in the hope that somebody will eventually rewrite them. Looie496 (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted the promotional tone sections. All is left is a WP:DICTDEF. VG ☎ 18:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Recreating the article with substantially different information never requires permission, although it is wise to create in userspace and source it well before recreating. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I doubt an encylopedic article can be written about this topic because it's simply too vague. The article was clearly biased being sourced exclusively from puff pieces instead of peer-reviewed papers. Here's a quotation from the abstract of the 2nd PMID paper (2007) provided above:
| “ | There have been many attempts to define mental health promotion. To date, there is no consensus in the field as to what it entails. While some understand it as a holistic concept including intervening at structural, societal and political levels to positively influence mental health, others conceptualise it basically as strategies with an individual focus to improve personal competencies. Many of these differences are related to the distinct understanding of the concepts of mental well-being and positive mental health. | ” |
- It will likely be another train wreck like the article on health promotion. This message approved by: VG ☎ 21:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.