Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green mind theory

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green mind theory[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. A theory espoused in one paper, published seven months ago, which is cited in a few lists of sources, but discussed almost only in social media and wikis. Hasn't yet caught on. Largoplazo (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a badly written and poorly structured article which merely has a single reference. The article does not say much more than that the natural environment affects mind and vice versa. Vorbee (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is original research by the authors (who are all non notable). It doesn't matter if the paper is peer reviewed, Wikipedia is not pedestal to advertise reaserch work to wider public. It should be otherwise. When the reaserch become notable and get reviewed in other independent papers then article may be created. But now delete, poorly sourced, magnet for synthesis. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete An interesting concept, but one that has been researched by others, and from what I can see their work is largely based on meta studies. Their paper also starts by saying this is a 'proposed' theory, which to me makes it more of a hypothesis. See also Green exercise Derek Andrews (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The phrase "Green mind theory" has not caught on with mass consciousness, and the article struggles to defend why it is a notable subject. Also, it only has one source, which is a dire poverty thereof. If the theory, or phrase, gets more widespread coverage, then it could warrant its own article; not now, though. If the creator really wants this in the Wikipedia article space, then they can create a draft in preparation. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2018 (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.