Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactive mind

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reactive mind

Poor estructure, lack of references. This page might as well be merged with Engram (Dianetics), with no significant loss. RUL3R (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Discussed in 306 books, 94 scholarly sources, 116 archived news articles. Clearly satisfies WP:NOTE, as subject of article has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While that is true, these 2 concepts (Engram and Reactive Mind) are very linked with each other, and both articles are very short, so an "Engrams and Reactive Mind" article could be created, merging information from both, without significant loss. It is very true that deletion might be a bit exaggerated. RUL3R (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - AfD is not the proper place to discuss that - this could have been done at the article's talk page. We are here now, and should assess the notability of Reactive mind, which is notable and easily satisfies WP:NOTE, and the AfD should thus result in Keep. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Still, I have seen many AfD's resulting in merge or redirect. RUL3R (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Still, you did not even try to bring this up for discussion anywhere before starting this Articles for deletion discussion. Cirt (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Any attempt at discussion somewhere else would have involved just you, probably Jayen466 and me. And in such a big proyect like Wikipedia, 3 people cannot be considered consensus for tens of thousands of users. That would be like validating a presidential election where only 2% or less of voters actually voted. I just hope wikipedians don't believe this is an attempt at controversy or speculation. RUL3R (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Any attempt at discussion somewhere else would have involved just you, probably Jayen466 and me. RUL3R (talk · contribs), please WP:AGF. Notices about an ongoing discussion could have been placed at central locations. If consensus could not have been come to amicably, dispute resolution could have been pursued. It was inappropriate to file an Articles for deletion discussion with the express intended purpose as you have laid out. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:SIZERULE: < 40 KB Length alone does not justify division. Merging this articles would make a < 10 KB article, concepts are very correlated. Reactive Mind makes few, if any, references to the concept of Engram. It is also very confusing to have separate articles covering topics that are so correlated. Or are we planning to carry an article on the history of Hershey's packaging image outside of the Hershey's article? RUL3R (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Things that could have been discussed at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge per above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would be equally happy with a merge in the opposite direct, as suggested by Dweller below. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. If this has been me I would have merged and redirected to start with, but the AfD will gauge consensus so this is not a fruitless pursuit. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Engram to this page, this being the broader term. --Dweller (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would support the above suggestion proposed by Dweller (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up one day riffic (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as keep. Nominator is proposing a merge to Engram (Dianetics). AfD is not the place to discuss a merge. There is no reason to delete Reactive mind, as it is a notable concept within Scientology. Fences&Windows 21:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient evidence of notability exists. No prejudice against a merge with Engram (Dianetics), but that should be discussed elsewhere - AFD is not for proposing mergers. (And in this case, I think there's reasonable grounds for having two separate articles anyway.) Robofish (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2009 (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.