Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial memory

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 Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racial memory

Racial memory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article is totally unsupported by WP:reliable sources. It's a mish-mash of article fragments with a long history of POV, and OR problems (see article talk page) all tangentially related to the subject outlined in the lead section. The only section of the article that has any real redeeming qualities only duplicates material properly presented in the collective unconscious article. Perfectly valid articles on epigenetics, maternal effects, maternal impression, and collective unconscious exist, but joining them all together without secondary sources into this article is simply WP:SYNT. Pete.Hurd 18:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact that this article in its current state is not very good is not grounds for its deletion. This is a well known term from Jungian psychology. Jungian psychology may be a load of myth-mongering codswallop, but the better known features of its jargon such as this (41K google hits) deserve articles. If you think it covers material better handled elsewhere, turn this into a fancy disambiguation page, with brief discussions of what aspects of it are discussed elsewhere. A plausible search term, it should not be left blank, nor its history erased from public memory. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • in that case, can you suggest appropriate Jungian psychology redirect target? Pete.Hurd 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd have to defer to experts here, but my guess is that some would be discussed under collective unconscious, mentioned above. Archetype is also something that should be mentioned here. Both of those articles, but especially archetype, could stand improvement themselves. The Theosophical concept of root races also is deserving a mention in this context; it represents a stream of prior speculation from which Jung borrowed heavily and consciously. Surprisingly, the Theosophical article is the best one on a related subject I have seen; that bit of lore is now picturesque enough to be 'interesting'. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No expertise here from me, I'm not that kind of Psychology Professor. I don't think a fancy "List of topics only superficially related to the Jungian concept of Racial Memory" disambiguation page has a good prospect of achieving featured list status. From a quick look around, there doesn't seem to be an obvious redirect target. If this is to be kept, I suggest making into a Category:Jungian psychology stub. Keeping all these poor and unsourced musings is a bad idea IMHO. Pete.Hurd 20:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Why guess when one can look for those experts? Looking for sources is part of the proper study of encyclopaedists, and it certainly prevents the error of lumping Freudian concepts into Jungian psychology. Some quick research turns up this, page 24 of ISBN 069102586X and pages 385–386 of ISBN 0898623871 (both of which latter discuss Freud's postulation of a racial memory, the former in relation to the ethnopsychology of Jews and the latter in relation to perceived resistance by patients to analysis), and page 182 of ISBN 0674615409 (which also discusses Freud and racial memory). Uncle G 00:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but with better sourcing, and possibly a better explanation of the use of "racial" in this context.--Lostcause365 20:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The history of problems in defining "race" in WP articles is not rich in success stories. I think the closer this sticks to well-sourced Jungian topics the better. Pete.Hurd 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As a key term in Jungian analysis it is notable. Needs attention from an expert.DGG 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep This cannot persist unreferenced, and I think it is a bunch of hooey, personally, but I certainly heard mention of it in intro psych in reference to Jungian psychology, so references exist out there for someone to write such an article. Perhaps stubbify pending well referenced edits by an expert in the subject. Edison 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but revise, source, etc as needed. Notable and well-used (if controversial) concept. 23skidoo 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If nothing else, important for highlighting the quacky side of Karl Jung. It was a pretty important concept to him, and there will undoubtedly be people writing papers on it looking for info online. Sources should be easily available.--Parsleyjones 02:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just because the article sucks or will be hard to write doesn't mean it should be deleted. Michaelwsherman 15:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: absolutely no references. While they do not need to be scientifically verified sources the information who claimed or theorized what, who is proponent or who did which experiments is missing completely. Pavel Vozenilek 00:51, 17 March 2007 (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.