Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consciousness after death (science)

: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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

=[[Consciousness after death (science)]]=

:{{la|Consciousness after death (science)}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Consciousness_after_death_(science) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Consciousness after death (science)}})

Reason Lycurgus (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Flagrant violation of several policies as noted by others on talk page

In spite of the historical baggage of the subject, the very title makes the thing clear. First, there is at this time no philosophical or scientific consensus about what "consciousness" is. Second the article is not "Consciousness during the death process" or any such but fully goes to the place of death, i.e. after the cessation of the brain function supporting consciousness, whatever that is, and posits consciousness continuing. The fact that it has sources and that, say as in the case of climate change denying accredited "scientists" or whatever can be sourced as giving it credence doesn't relieve the wiki editors from applying the standards for something like this in a thoughtful and uniform way. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

: That is precisely why the article should be kept. If there is 'at this time no philosophical or scientific consensus about what "consciousness" is', then that itself is highly significant, and the problem with the concept of "consciousness" should be clearly set out in the article. I personally have no belief that consciousness survives death. But if there is a coherent scientific position here, then I would like to see it set out in balanced and definitive way. Or if the issue is merely a conceptual muddle, a philosophical rather than a scientific issue, then the article should establish that. And if the matter is just plain confused, and no one (apart from you, dear reader, and me) knows what they are talking about, then the article should establish that. But any way you slice it, it is a significant article on a matter many people wonder about at some stage in their life, and it warrants a place on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep: I suppose this is the sort of article that attracts dramatic responses like Lycurgus's "flagrant violation". However, it is a significant topic, which should be addressed on Wikipedia in a balanced and sensible way. Contrary to the assertion above, the article in its current state is not at all a hotbed of flagrant violations, though like many articles it could be improved by expanding it and adopting a more dispassionate tone. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep the article as it is about a belief common across many cultures, and so is worthy to be in the encyclopedia. If articles about historical myths etc do qualify to stay in the encyclopedia, I believe this common belief, though old now, must be kept.Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

::You're saying keep Ahmer, but arguing delete or merge into the titles for that. Unlike the climate change analogy, this is a bold absurdity claiming to be science, clear on the face of it in namespace as it were, so I will be really curious to see how this goes but not going to comment further. I will confess I just examined the body of the article and see that I did not misjudge. There are things such as "Mechanisms to preserve Consciousness after death" that could have had some basis, but this ... Lycurgus (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete as an inferior fork of Near-death experience. There might be something to merge here, which would be fine if anyone is up to it. Near-death experience is a correctly named, scientifically studied, much written upon topic. This is more of an essay. Carrite (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

:: Come now Carrite, this article is about consciousness after death. That has little to do with "near-death experience", which is about consciousness before death. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

::: We have near death experience and we have afterlife... This is a POV fork. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

:::: The article is supposed to be about the scientific take on consciousness after death (notwithstanding Smartse removing "science" from the title). Calling an article which aims to look at the scientific evidence, if it exists, a "POV fork" suggests an attempt to suppress the scientific approach. That is POV. If science is unable to address the issue sensibly, that itself would be highly significant, enough to warrant the article. That starting point here should be completely neutral as to whether there is or isn't consciousness after death. The article has little to do with the article on Afterlife. That article opens with "In philosophy, religion, mythology, and fiction, the afterlife... is the concept of a realm...", and goes on to detail a set of beliefs certain traditions have which assume there is an afterlife. There is no science in Afterlife, merely a redirect to this article. This article aims to replace belief structures with an account of the extent to which the issue can be approached in a dispassionate, critical and scientific manner. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge. Notable philosophical discussion. I personally find the very concept wacky too, but that is not a good reason to delete. That a belief is unscientific is not a reason to cover it; after all we have homeopathy, for example. --Cyclopiatalk 10:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge into afterlife which is our main article on the various perspectives about this topic. Warden (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is well sourced and is likely to be interesting to some Wikipedia readers. I would like to see the section on quantum consciousness removed as this is mere fringe speculation. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC).
  • Comment Anyone know why the article had the "science" tag at the end when "consciousness after death" wasn't already in use as a title? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

:This was addressed by Smartse, we're now dealing with just the naked oxymoron, as an article separate from Afterlife and Near death experience. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Image:Information.svg It should be noted that {{User|Lycurgus}} is stacking the voted here by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72.228.189.184&oldid=484753507 using a sock] --Epipelagic (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

::I adjusted the indent if that's what you're referring to, after seeing in the documentation for AFD that one could do so without asking. As far as logging in, there's no reason to do so as I've finished my remarks on the substance of the issue, just performing chores. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

:::Although it is acceptable to edit via your username and IP when editing articles, doing so at Afd without explicitly noting that connection is not a legitimate way to edit while logged out. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

::::Per user above, stating the obvious, that 72.228.189.184 is my IP. Only structural change is I deleted my delete vote and moved the associated text to the opening of the AFD. I'm not especially a deletionist, so not gotten involved in this process, which btw, is somewhat top heavy. could use streamlining. I'm thru here, standing back to see what shakes out. Lycurgus (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

:::::Ok, not a huge deal, but please be careful in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Image:Information.svg It should be also be noted that Lycurgus/72.228.189.184 has not merely "adjusted the indent", but has restructured the page so it no longer displays what had been going on. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep Yes, there are definitely some point of view issues and not much of a counter-argument section, but to me the article is certainly salvageable and definitely meets WP:GNG, but I don't believe anyone is contesting that. Anyway, I would vote to probably keep. Go Phightins! (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete and then disambiguate between near-death experience and afterlife. It's a plausible search term so shouldn't be a redlink, but we can't possibly keep this content. I find it poorly-researched and unreliable. It omits important qualifiers and misleads by implication. For example, it says "measurable brain activity ends within 20 to 40 seconds"... and then links a study showing that measurable brain activity ends within 20-40 seconds in dogs. It says "Some scientists disagree that consciousness is permanently lost after brain death. James Forberg..." and fails to note that far from being a recognised scientist, Mr James L. Forberg is an engineer, self-described as a "scientist-theologian", whose one book was self-published via Xlibris. The article is untrustworthy and synthy and excising it would improve the encyclopaedia.

    However, I would not object to someone starting a fresh article with this title later. It's this particular article, and its history, that I feel should be removed.—S Marshall T/C 17:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep - well sourced, an important philosophical question and hardly just about NDEs. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

:*No, it's not well-sourced. It's about the basic question of what happens to consciousness after death. It then goes on to consider the question of quantum consciousness. A well-sourced article on this subject would begin with The Emperor's New Mind by Sir Roger Penrose, go on to Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett and thence to The Mystery of Consciousness by John Searle before proceeding to more recent literature with which I'm unfamiliar. It would consider the question of in what substrate the consciousness might endure—for example, in theory, could the conscious mind be uploaded to a computer just as the body expires?—rather than implying, as the present version does based on self-published sources, that the consciousness might continue after death without a substrate, i.e. in a void. That's a theological question rather than a scientific or philosophical one, and it's come about through trying to tackle a difficult subject using inferior and self-published sources. Oh, sure, there are also good sources cited, but they're only used to support basic facts; the intellectual heavy lifting isn't based on the right sources at all.—S Marshall T/C 02:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep What ever the problems with the article in its current state, the topic itself is noteworthy. Sædontalk 02:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree one hundred per cent with the last comment. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2012 (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.