Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-anxiety

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 merge to Psychological effects of climate change. That article does not exist yet, so anybody is free to create it or to selectively merge these contents to another appropriate place in the meantime. There is no consensus for deletion, but there is consensus to not keep this as a separate article. Sandstein 07:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-anxiety[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is essentially a WP:COATRACK for a conservative opinion that alarmism is causing psychological harm. Not only this, but it looks close to being set-up to be an WP:ATTACKPAGE against Greta Thunberg. I am appalled it's being hosted on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

jps has included a mention of this AFD at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Eco-anxiety. You guys really need to have a proper list so it doesn't appear you are canvasing for votes. Dream Focus 17:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a good idea in the past and had proposed this very idea some years ago. The consensus then was that we should continue with the status quo. Feel free to bring up the idea again at WT:FTN. jps (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surreal, in context. Yes, it's well known that if it takes the form of a proper list, even if the whole purpose of that list is to find people to !vote a certain way, it's not canvassing. (Let's not dwell on the fact that literally all of the keeps in this very AfD are from ARS members, apart from the one "keep or merge"). Meanwhile, if you notify people based on subject expertise/interest, that is canvassing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was not listed on the Article Rescue Squadron's list. One person is here because he created the article, I and someone else just found our way here by chance. The nominator however mentions it at "fringe theories" despite it not a fringe theory at all, and two regular editors there commented in that section and also came here to comment they don't think the article should exist. Dream Focus 17:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological neologisms that are thrown around without MEDRS sourcing often find their way to FTN. As for ARS, my point was about ARS generally, since your comment was about general practice. That it wasn't listed at ARS yet all of the ARS regulars found a fellow member's article nominated for deletion and showed up to !vote keep, that's not better. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!ApLundell (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Psychological effects of climate change currently redirects to a rather lengthy section in Effects of climate change on human health. I think the appropriate resolution is to break this out into a separate article at Psychological effects of climate change, and selectively merge this article into that one. BD2412 T 00:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change is just one of many ecological concerns. Others include pollution, pesticides, overpopulation, mass extinction, deforestation, the ozone layer, invasive species, pandemics, atomic energy and nuclear war, land mines and other military conflict, poaching and bush meat, overfishing, &c. This endless succession of existential threats is naturally alarming. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What source describes anything like "eco-anxiety" over land mines?! WP:NOR. jps (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples:

Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "eco-anxiety" appears in none of those papers. Try again. jps (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look at this version by the creator [1]. If this isn't an attack page maybe a troll page of the highest quality. Too much spin to the article. I notice that edits have been made shortly after nomination here to remove the troll content. The POV of the creator is blatant. Disgusting. - hako9 (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly merge - eh what? I agree that this might be better off if merged with Ecological grief, but that approach hasn't found favour. Can't see any reason to holler against it on a content level though. The Greta Thunberg section was pretty OR and its removal was sensible. The rest seems well sourced and factual, and frankly requires a great willingness to project political innuendo to perceive as an "attack page". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A very selective merge with Ecological grief. Too much repetition of words and redundancy. The version of the article before nomination transgressed maybe all rules of MOS. The whole "Alternative terminology" section needs to be trimmed. There's no need to name drop a hundred psychologists. - hako9 (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BD2412. Reywas92^Talk 17:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was started on 31 March 2019. The immediate inspiration for this was an article that the BBC had published four days before: 'Eco-anxiety': how to spot it and what to do about it. This was the time that Extinction Rebellion made a big splash in London and I went to Oxford Circus myself to take a picture of their pink boat (right). Extinction Rebellion is in the news again and so I suppose that's the reason for this bizarre disruption.

The topic is not the same as ecological grief just as grief is not the same as anxiety. Grief is mourning the past while anxiety is fear and concern about the future. Eco-anxiety is very notable as there's a lot of it about and there are numerous books and papers specifically about various aspects it – a list of examples follows. The topic should therefore not be deleted per our policy ATD whuch states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. ... Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page." See also WP:CENSOR.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not voting yet as I'll have to think more about it and look at sources. An initial impression is that the "Treatment & responses" section seems realistic and not denial propaganda. —Paleo Neonate – 13:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and ARS comments. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an easy keep based on WP:V and WP:SIGCOV This is a real thing based on the many mainstream books and articles related to eco-anxiety. Andrew Davidson has presented several great sources. I have also found non-trivial coverage in Medical News Today here, Time Magazine here. Lightburst (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per : User:Andrew Davidson and per WP:GNG and WP:RS. I also disagree with the nominator; our guidelines are to provide independent, reliable sourcing, not determine which subjects should or shouldn't be written about on Wikipedia. The attack on the initial creator of the article is an Ad hominem irrelevancy. We should deal with the article as it is not as it was.7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think that BD2412 has gotten it entirely correct. I would also caution anyone taking the links that Andrew Davidson has put in the discussion at face value. Self help and theological publishers, student research and MFA thesis', and one looks self published.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD for ample news sources covering this. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/b2e7ee32-ad28-4ec4-89aa-a8b8c98f95a5 https://time.com/5735388/climate-change-eco-anxiety/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-climate-children/children-suffering-eco-anxiety-over-climate-change-say-psychologists-idUSKBN1W42CF Just read through any of them, they giving significant coverage of this. Dream Focus 17:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD2412 makes a lot of sense. Spinning out that section would make this redundant (except as a POVFORK, so to speak). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, merger with Psychological effects of climate change does not make sense because there's more to this than climate change. What gets people just as upset are issues like pollution -- I watched an account last night of how a single plastic teabag can release as many as a billion microplastic particles. I haven't checked that alarming fact yet myself but it was also published by the BBC and so seems reasonably reputable. And besides pollution, there's mass extinction which is mainly due to habitat loss. So, constraining this into a climate change title would be a significant distortion of the topic and so is not sensible. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about plastic teabags. It says that "eco-anxiety" is synonymous with "climate anxiety", which stems from fears about the current and predicted future state of the environment caused by human-induced climate change. There is no "distortion of the topic" involved in "constraining" it to be about climate change, because that is what it is already about. XOR'easter (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some people seem to think it's more than just the climate and highlight plastic pollution in particular. For example, "The saturation of media reports on issues such as climate change and plastic pollution, accompanied by images of smoke-spewing coal stacks, polar bears stranded on tiny pieces of ice and waves of plastic washing up on beaches, plays a big role in feeding anxiety about environmental problems." Andrew🐉(talk) 05:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article passes our notability guideline. Eco-anxiety is widely covered in the standard publications like Time Magazine and the BBC. One of the most detailed books appears to be this one: A Guide to Eco-Anxiety: How to Protect the Planet and Your Mental Health. Worldlywise (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very selectively merge to Psychological effects of climate change, which should be a separate article from Effects of climate change on human health. We name articles based on what is informative, not by what neologism happens to be in vogue this month. Nor is it cleanly separate from ecological grief; witness the repeated mentions of "grief" in the text (twelve, not counting the merger notice). XOR'easter (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into new Psychological effects of climate change article along with Ecological grief, per BD2412 and XOR’easter. Brunton (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into new Psychological effects of climate change article along with Ecological grief. There should be a serious article about this subject, but this is not it. It started as a blatant attack article, and became a subtle attack article. Tercer (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new article to the two above votes -- there are so many competing interrelated topics here that aren't being sufficiently disambiguated or distinguished from eachother -- per the previous discussion on the talk page, Sadads (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a separate well defined subject, not a duplicate or a content fork of Psychological effects of climate change because not all psychological effects are anxiety and ecology is not equal to climate change. Perhaps this page could be merged with Ecological grief, but this is an entirely different subject for discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Like others above, I think this article is best merged into Psychological effects of climate change along with Ecological grief. Having enough coverage for WP:GNG is only one of the criteria used to decide if an article merits a standalone page (WP:NOPAGE, WP:CFORK, WP:NEOLOGISM all apply). (t · c) buidhe 18:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Psychological effects of climate change, which is the neutral term. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Effects of climate change on human health, per others. The present form is in effect a neologism. Zaathras (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and link to Psychological effects of climate change. As this term is used in the literature and in given the American Psychiatric Association (APA) uses it, it is notable enough for its own article. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect If this is meant to be an article about the neologism specifically, it's a complete WP:COATRACK, as half the sources don't use the term. If this isn't about the neologism specifically, it's a WP:POVFORK of the above suggestions. In either case, it doesn't seem sufficiently well-defined to seperate it from anything else. I'd say redirect to [[Psychological effects of climate change, and merge carefully. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 07:01, 10 September 2020 (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.