Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind (The Culture) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 The Culture. I am not sure I understand the keep argument advanced by Timmccloud, and it looks like the GNG based delete argument has gone unaddressed ... except for one argument ZXCVBNM advanced. It seems like the consensus is either redirect, delete or merge, ZXCVBNM's argument is good enough for a merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Mind (The Culture)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fictional concept that fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. Pure WP:PLOT; all references present contain quotations that don't go beyond plot summaries. Term mentioned in few outside works but just as one-sentence repetition of fictional universe plot. PS. Was previously nominated by User:Sandstein, the AfD was closed after sources were added, but the problem is, as noted in my prior sentence, that those sources don't go beyond PLOT-level description; analysis in them, if any, is very superficial and doesn't go beyond The Culture fictional universe features AIs.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete (EDIT: or Merge per ZXCVBNM) - WP:NFICTION is a failed guideline and should not be relied on. I do not understand why people keep referring to this (now) essay - I think it will have to be relabelled as a failed guideline with links to the 8 (!) RFCs in which it was rejected just to highlight this to nominators attempting to rely on it. Unlike other essays, this is not one that we can pretend was ever accepted at any level by the community.
 * This said, it really is hard to see how any of the coverage cited in the article or elsewhere amounts to WP:SIGCOV of the concept of "minds" in the works of Iain M. Banks separate to the already-existing article covering the "set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory". These are basically the same concept with some (science) fictionalising on top. As such this is a duplication/fork. FOARP (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to The Culture, where there is a big unsourced chunk about them, and integrate the sources from this article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect - Fails GNG. TTN (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I beg to differ with FOARP, the article he refers to discusses nothing about synthetic (non-biological) minds, which this topic is all about. All of a sudden Ian M Banks seems to be the target of a coordinated AFD rash that is inappropriate, this is the 4th page in as many days getting this treatment.  Timmccloud (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And your keep rationale is...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? I will state it again "the article he refers to discusses nothing about synthetic (non-biological) minds". This article is about synthetic (non-biological) minds and nothing like it exists on Wikipedia, and it should. Timmccloud (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So, WP:ITSIMPORTANT it is, then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.