Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subconscious, Conscious and Superconscious


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Subconscious, Conscious and Superconscious

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Original research fork with no reliable sources; consciousness and the subconscious are already adequately covered in their own articles. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is pure original research. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  18:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not in the sense of Wikipedia editors making up novel things and putting them into Wikipedia, it isn't. There are people who have written books espousing these very ideas.  One of them, The Game of Life and How to Play It, was written by Florence Scovel Shinn in 1930.  I can find other books that cite Shinn, too.  So it's not original research in the sense of one person's idiosyncrasies, either.  Nor &mdash; 1930, remember &mdash; is it a novel creation. Hindu psychology: its meaning for the West tells us that although it is largely derided by European and American psychologists, this theory of mind has been studied by William James.  So, too, does William Walker Atkinson's Subconscious and the Superconscious Planes of Mind.  And, indeed, a quick search turns up The Varieties of Religious Experience talking about samadhi, for one, as a superconscious state of mind. You may not agree with the hypothesis that the mind operates this way, but this is far from being one person's idiosyncractic and novel thesis being published first in Wikipedia without any traction in the world at large.  On the contrary, it appears to have had at least 80 years of traction at this point.   Uncle G (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you mean by "it", Uncle G. I've found an external article with the exact same title (on the WP spam blacklist, so not linkable here).  There, "superconsciousness" is distinctly theological.  But the WP article (in some way left unstated) situates "superconsciousness" clearly within some mainstream (Freudian, Jungian) psychological theories with no clear mystical or theological elements.  You've turned up evidence (not too hard to find) that the word has some history.  But the article should then be about its notable uses.  Do we have one of these here?  In a way, we do already, but it argues for Delete: Superconsciousness currently redirects to Collective unconscious.  The notability of the concept, under a different term that many more people will recognize, is ample enough. Somebody still needs to show that "superconsciousness" can be something else, something notable per se. Yakushima (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as being OR in this form. Just read the article creator's exposition on the talk page ("I have not taken the time to peruse the literature and aggregate sources accurately"). As the article does not explain the notions (what is "superconsciousness" supposed to mean?), it is not encyclopedically useful anyway. It is also not clear that different authors independently inventing the neologism "superconsciousness" intended it to mean more-or-less the same concept. This recommendation to delete is without prejudice – please come back when workable definitions of these various paraconsciousnesses, as well as the various pronouncements in the article such as about the relationship with "current psychological treatment", can be sourced from reliable sources. --Lambiam 10:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as being OR per Lambiam. Perhaps this needs to be incubated? Bearian (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Lambian and the existence of article Collective unconscious, which probably covers any solid notability it has. Yakushima (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2010 (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.