Wiki143:Articles for deletion/The unconscious is structured like a language

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 of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 05:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

the unconscious is structured like a language

Reason why the page should be deleted Personally, I don't want this article deleted - I think it could serve an important purpose of discussing a difficult and disputed school of psychoanalytic theory in a NPOV way. But User:Kelly Martin has already unilaterally deleted it twice, so I'd like to see it put to a vote. Bacchiad 05:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• All the material in this page was merged into Jacques Lacan some time ago; there is nothing in this article which is not redundant with the Lacan article. This phrase is not sufficiently interesting as to merit its own article, and there is no point in having a redirect. Delete. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Kelly.--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete: unsearchable, redundant, unverified, plus no indication of what 'structured like a language' is supposed to mean. Peter Grey 05:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This concept serves an analogous role in Lacanian theory to the collective unconscious in Jungian theory. If we have collective unconscious (and we do) we should keep this. I can understand a demand for re-naming, since the title is admittedly awkward, but then again we do have cogito ergo sum and Just Say No. The unconscious is structured like a language is simply the operative buzz-phrase in Lacanian theory. As for the material reduplicating what is already in Jacques Lacan, this is largely a result of Ms. Martin's two previous merge-and-deletes. Bacchiad 05:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kelly. While cogito ergo sum and Just Say No have articles, these phrases are known worldwide to a cross-section of society. Operative buzz-phrases in Lacanian theory do not deserve their own encyclopedia entries. ConDem^Talk 06:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Should we also remove collective unconscious? Or synchronicity? Relatively obscure psychoanalytic concepts already have their own articles. If this is purely a naming problem, we could simply move the article to unconscious (Lacan) or Lacanian unconscious. Bacchiad 06:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe we should. I know very little about psychoanalytical theory, and have never studied it, but I've heard the phrases "collective unconscious" and "synchronicity" before, and I think they're notable topics. Also, collective unconscious and synchronicity have material that is not in Carl Jung. ConDem^Talk 06:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Bacchiad's suggestion might work. I personally don't know enough psychology to assess the actual theory, but I do know enough linguistics to know that 'the unconscious is structured like a language' is unlikely to ever make any kind of sense. Peter Grey 06:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but move to a place like Unconscious_(Lacan). The actual phrase is not famous enough for an article, but this Lacanian idea has been quite influential: I get 554 google scholar hits for "unconscious" + "structured like a language". David Sneek 08:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kelly. The material should be rightly covered at Lacan. Eusebeus 09:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kelly. --Arnzy (Talk) 10:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Move to more appropriate title, or check the merge anew - I have the impression that, contrary to what Kelly says, not everything in the article is currently represented in the Jacques Lacan one (e.g. relation to earlier and later linguistic theory, structuralism etc.) This still seems decent material that should be saved. Except for the title it actually is a pretty good article. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  Bacchiad's most recent recreation includes material that was not included in the version I originally merged. The new content should probably also be reviewed for potential merge before the article is deleted. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Kelly states the case precisely. —Encephalon 13:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kelly. Beyond that, I'm unsure how nom thinks this article will promulgate discussion of the theory; it isn't as if Wikipedia is a psych bulletin board or blog. RGTraynor 14:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kelly. --Terence Ong 15:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kelly Martin. —LrdChaos 19:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kelly. Just zis Guy you know? 11:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per, well, you get the drift now. Sandstein 20:19, 11 April 2006 (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.