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. BD2412 T 03:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Group mind (science fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Largely unreferenced listcruft and example farm that fails WP:LISTN. I have merged the sole potentially relevant sentence in the article to Collective consciousness#In speculative fiction. Almost everything else is WP:OR. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an underreferenced list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and convert to a more explicit list, List of science fiction works involving group minds -- The Anome (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While the concept may be notable, I'm leaning towards deletion simply because of what a mess this is, and how starting over from scratch would probably be easier then trying to clean up this massive amount of poor, unsourced content. At the very least, this needs some massive clean up and pruning, as just a quick glance over this list is showing tons of entries that aren't actually a "group mind", examples that are listed multiple times on different parts of the list, and a bunch of entries from things that are not science fiction. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. There are many academic works of literary criticism that discuss this concept, easily accessible on Google Books and the Internet Archive:

• Science Fiction and the Prediction of the Future: Essays on Foresight and Fallacy by Wong King Yuen, McFarland (2011)
• The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Works, and Wonders · Volume 3 by Gary Westfahl, Greenwood Press (2005)
• Philosophers Look at Science Fiction by Nicholas D. Smith, Nelson-Hall (1982)
• Science Fiction in Classic Rock: Musical Explorations of Space, Technology and the Imagination, 1967-1982 by Robert McParland, McFarland (2017)
• Brave New Words : The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction by Jeff Brucher, Oxford University Press (2007)

All of these discuss the concept in real-world terms, comparing different uses of the concept in the context of the history of the genre. I'll add these sources to the page under a "Further reading" secction, so that people can use them to improve the article. With WP:ARTN in mind, I think that people who are concerned about the quality of the article should use these sources and make it better. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources provided by Toughpigs establishes notability... — Hunter Kahn 03:49, 7 February 2020 (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.