Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suboptimal health

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. Sandstein 11:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suboptimal health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

As far as I can tell, the concept (as defined by Yan and Wang) describes a set of risk factors for obesity, smoking, mental health issues, and being overworked. Except for sources 3-6, all sources include both Yu-Xiang Yan and Wei Wang on the author list. Sources 4 and 5 also do not have listed authors. This makes me seriously question if sources 3, 4, 5, 6 can pull their weight as reliable and independent (of Yan and Wang's research), especially to the high standard of WP:MEDRS. I suspect the original creation of this article was a COI edit, as several paragraphs show up as copy pastes on earwig from Yan and Wang's publications. I will now go over sources 3-6:

- Source 3 does not cite any of Yan and Wang's publications, but comes after in 2013, suggesting that the research on 'subhealth' is only coincidentally similar to 'suboptimal health' researched by Yan and Wang. It seems to be the only source independent of Yan and Wang to meet MEDRS.

- The concept of suboptimal health been used to uncriticially promote chinese traditional medicine (TCM) - see this removal for example. source (source 4), also mentions how TCM is central to the concept and markets TCM products to this end. It does not meet MEDRS as it is an opinion article.

- Source 5 uncritically promotes TCM, makes no citations, and it is unclear to me if it refers to the same topic that Yan and Wang cover. Does not meet MEDRS.

- Source 6 looks reliable, independent and has significant coverage, stating: "However, lacking of precise definition by official health bodies, the term "sub-health" remains a vague concept. The concept of sub-health has gone popular in the Chinese mainland in the 90s and has been controversial. It was accused of being a commercial excuse for the business of health care products by the local media." As a news report it does not meet MEDRS.

Sources I did find, by doing a google and google scholar search for 'subhealth' and 'suboptimal health':

- [1]. It seems reliable, independent and has significant coverage. It claims that Wang has published over 200 papers about SHS which I am a bit skeptical of, but otherwise this seems okay. Does not mention TCM involvement.

- [2]. Does not cite Yan and Wang. This paper is funded by a company trying to promote the aformentioned dietary supplement, and is unrelated to TCM. I doubt it would meed MEDRS due to the lack of independent review or funding.

Of course, uncritically promoting TCM does not alone warrant the concept/article for deletion, so my main argument is about the lack of independent sources meeting MEDRS with significant coverage to Yan and Wang's research. It is also unclear to what extent Yan and Wang's research may have been involved to promote TCM. My speculation is that this term has a popular Chinese equivalent term in circulation, which I cannot verify myself as I can't read Chinese. It is possible the topic has notability for Chinese Wikipedia, which it does have an article for (it seems to be a translated copy of this one). But I do find it concerning how the concept uncritically promotes TCM. I am not sure what role Wikipedia should play in presenting that material without undue weight, especially considering the paucity of sources I could identify in english which independently refer to Yan and Wang's research, since they seem to be the central researchers to the topic as it exists in China.

My personal opinion is to delete the article, and it could be restored when significant coverage by two reliable, independent sources meeting MEDRS are published and found -- ideally review articles of the concept, including its Chinese historical significance and how it is related to both TCM and dietary supplements. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and China. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Translational medicine: the target is better sourced, and covers more than just a single term. Owen× ☎ 15:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as first choice for the reasons given by nom; merge as second choice, but to Traditional Chinese Medicine rather than Translational Medicine. Most of the citations discuss subhealth in the context of TCM, so at least with the references we have it seems like a better fit for that article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. Comment. After checking publications in Google Scholar, this seems to be a sufficiently established terminology in various contexts, for example [3],[4], [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Among the sources you linked: 3 has Yang and Wang, and 5 has Wang, so they are not independent (I happened to of already read source 3 as part of WP:BEFORE). I did not know 4 existed (thank you for finding it!), and at first it seems to be a reliable source to establish notability. Ideally, to meet MEDRS we would have multiple such independent reviews, so this still seems somewhat of a borderline case. Although I notice a few statements leading me to question its reliability:

  - Many developed countries, including Saudi Arabia, I understand some of the authors reside in Saudi Arabia but I understand this statement to be false.

  - According to the diagnostic guidelines provided by the Association of Chinese Medicine, symptoms in three areas, namely, systematic, psychological, and social, are evaluated to assess SHS This confirms in part that SHS is associated to TCM, although the exact relationship is still unclear to me. In any case, a significant amount of SHS studies seem from Wang's research group.

  - Of the four metrics among 12-14 articles assessed in the review (SHSQ-25, SHMS V1.0, MSQA, SSS) the original proposals of SHSQ-25 and MSQA appear to have been developed by Wang's group. Not a factor to rule it out, just as an observation.

  - The paper states SHS has now been recognized as an essential construct in personalized medicine to decrease the risk of developing disease and enhance general health. Moreover, the idea of SHS reflects the belief that chronic diseases can be effectively predicted and prevented before a clinical manifestation of severe pathologies from the view of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine and cites [6] for support, which seems like a paper mill as the only search result for the journal is a LLC company statement. The quote is a significant claim considering the little research in the area and makes me possibly question the neutrality of the authors on the subject.

  I do not have a good explanation, but I have to wonder why there is no research I can seem to find covering this in the US, considering this particularly named theory has been around since at least 2009. Anyway, I think these are all factors that should be weighed in consideration of the outcome of this AfD. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I certainly do not have time and expertise to look so carefully at all these sources... My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO and given journals or content published in journals (namely about "suboptimal health") are not inherently notable, especially concepts that only function as one researcher's "brand". बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2023 (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.