Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate psychosis

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 redirect to Eco-anxiety. RL0919 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Climate psychosis

[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 article asserts a medical diagnosis based on a small number of primary sources, most of which are not medical, which use different terms. This is not distinct from anxiety due to any other cause, as far as I can see. As-is, this looks to me like WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't see the case for this right now without WP:SYNTH but the concept that climate change impacts mental health is notable enough that I could be persuaded to change my !vote if compelling academic sources were provided. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is either WP:TOOSOON or a WP:POVFORK. Either way, not appropriate for the 'pedia. jps (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pass The article provides two primary sources: One of Australian psychiatrists clinical diagnosis and one of Swedish psychologists specifically working with "climate anxiety". The article is good enough, if you ask me. --Albert Falk (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those substantiates the article title as a clinical syndrome, and the two cases are different. So there's that. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eco-anxiety which is the term that those discussing this phenomenon seem to use, [1][2][3][4]. Stress regarding climate change can cause "acute and transient psychosis and relapse of bipolar disorder" but I'm not seeing reliable sources using the term "climate psychosis" except for when quoting Marine Le Pen. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eco-anxiety per Þjarkur. Changed !vote Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the two previous proposals, however, climate psychosis is still a term, not officially as it implies a political controversial aspect, but which non the less exists describing delusions and psychotic behaviour related to environmentalism. There is for example "Eco-terrorism". --Albert Falk (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eco-anxiety This appears to be the usual term used to describe this. Perhaps the bit about the patient who refused to drink water could be added to that article, but I would want to see a better source. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved the article. It is a delusion that has been proposed by the Aussie psychs, which is very separate to eco-anxiety after reading the full text of the article --[E.3][chat2][me] 20:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also this should be renamed Climate change delusion I WP:BOLDly changed that redirect, previously to climate change denial - I dont think all people with climate change denial have delusions in the medical sense --[E.3][chat2][me] 20:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was indeed an improvement. However, only one case of "Climate change delusion" has been described, in that 2008 paper. I don't feel like a single case of delusions can be a standalone article, especially since nothing more has been written that uses this term. I still !vote to merge this single case into the Eco-anxiety article. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a rename to Mental health effects of climate change for both articles --[E.3][chat2][me] 21:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with [E.3][chat2][me]. And changing it to "eco-anxiety" is not the same as a delusion. And mental health effects of climate change is a very big euphemistic word. I prefer "climate change delusion". --Albert Falk (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a mental health effect of climate change, it is a mental health problem that leads to irrational beliefs about the climate. --mfb (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, this seems to be an article about a single case over a decade ago that fits into the general category of Eco-anxiety. It's worth noting that the original version of the article(from two days ago) was about two sentences of coverage of that one unique case before launching into a *much* more dubious discussion that borders on climate change denial. If this article is kept, it should be watched carefully to make sure it doesn't become a home for fringe ideas. ApLundell (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete - 200 Google hits for "Climate psychosis", not a common term but still used sometimes. --mfb (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as argued above. The current version of the article suffers from a mishmash of denialist and denial-ish sources, and is basically a grab-bag of uses of the word "psychosis". I'd call the last two sections WP:SYNTH, but I'm not sure they're coherent enough to qualify. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't exactly weep buckets if it were deleted, either. There are basically two sources worth using [5][6], and anything based on them could be rewritten from scratch with nominal effort, so keeping the page history available isn't necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most sources are useless propaganda, the term is used almost only by fringe proponents. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/delete POVFork. Presenting the topic removed from the context of climate change denial and eco-anxiety has no place in a serious encyclopedia. I started going through the sources looking for something to salvage, but it looks futile. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete The lead is okay, and could almost bw merged with eco-anxiety, but everything after that is just a WP:COATRACK Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 14:03, 14 August 2019 (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.