Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social consciousness


 * 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   keep. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Social consciousness

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article seems to be talking about a form of collective social conscience, yet social conscience itself, which should have an article, redirects here. Some sources found on Google books but it is not clear that they are all referring to the same thing. I think it needs a discussion. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – entire books are dedicated to various aspects of social consciousness. The article is quite expandable:
 * Language, ideology and social consciousness: developing a sociohistorical approach
 * Theology and the social consciousness: a study of the relations of the social consciousness to theology
 * Literature, social consciousness, and polity
 * Awakening to Race: Individualism and Social Consciousness in America
 * Children's Social Consciousness and the Development of Social Responsibility
 * Class Structure in the Social Consciousness, Volume 102
 * Social Consciousness in Legal Decision Making: Psychological Perspectives
 * – Many more sources exist. NorthAmerica1000 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But can you find a RS that defines the term? The reference there is behind a paywall and it is not clear what it says if anything about the definition of the term. The article has existed since 2004 and has remained undeveloped since then despite plenty of edits. I suspect that the term is not in general use despite its use in book titles, and that is why the article has not been expanded. A general Google search is not encouraging, producing mostly low quality and psycho-babble new age type sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable concept. User:Philafrenzy: yes, just search google books for "Social consciousness defined". Writing Wrongs and Imagining Change defines it as " a dynamic process involving a conscious awareness of the social-historical context, thinking abstractly about time and place, and beyond the immediate everyday conditions to understand one's own experience as embedded in a broader system of social relations". The Indian Journal of Social Work defines it for example as "preparedness to help non-familial others in need". The very same definition is repeated in Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology. Poor definitions, overall, but still useful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Those two definitions are not the same are they, which sort of proves my point that it is not an established term with a clearly understood meaning? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I turned the redirect social conscience into a separate article and found this useful page on social consciousness which discusses the debate about whether it can exist outside of individual conscience or social conscience. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No clear established definition does not mean it is not notable. It just means it's a pain to write about. See Wikipedia_talk:SOCIO: some key articles about social structure topics have similar problems with contradictory definitions, but we are hardly going to delete them, are we? This is a similar case IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am fine with ambiguity as long as it can be precisely defined! It can be kept as long as we can list the different meanings in use with reliable sources to back them up and make clear how "social consciousness" is different from consciousness, conscience and social conscience. I don't think that has been done yet. The article I linked might enable that to happen. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I would like to ask the nominator: if this is not an issue of notability of the concept, as we all agree that such a concept exists, and that it is significantly cover in several authoritative sources, why did you AfD then? Shouldn't this be just discussed in that article's talk page, or the relevant Wikigroup? 舎利弗 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It was an issue of notability as searches found no reliable sources that defined the term and the sources that did exist were not clearly talking about the same thing. Some of them were very low quality too. That was reflected in the way the article had remained undeveloped for a very long time. Could you have defined the term closely and referenced that definition with a reliable source before the Questia source emerged? A phrase merely being mentioned in several book titles is not really enough and I don't agree that the meaning of the term is self-explanatory if that is what you are suggesting. However, based on the Questia source we have at least one definition to hang the article on and know the source of that definition (Karl Marx) so I am happy to withdraw the nomination and hang the article on that unless anyone disagrees. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2014 (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.