Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current theories of dream mentation

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 delete. ✗plicit 12:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current theories of dream mentation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Deprodded without improvement, this appears to be a personal essay, based largely upon a single work. Delete as per WP:NOTESSAY. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage of this topic. Complete WP:SYNTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, um, what the heck is "mentation"? Great that is has FOUR theories, let's figure out what it is first. Not sure who the article is for, certainly not a general audience, if they get tripped up on the title. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yikes. I'd normally suggest a redirect to Cognitive neuroscience of dreams but the content is too much SYNTH to even warrant that, and the title is very unlikely to be used. Ovinus (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My mentation has me believing that this article fails WP:GNG. This article appears to be a WP:SYNTH of the sources, which themselves do not appear to actually support the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article does not warrant a deletion. I would rather amend this entire article than remove it. The research here is not entirely original and can still be changed to fit Wikipedia’s guidelines. To respond to Oaktree, Mentation is defined as “mental activity”, and it doesn’t matter who the “audience” you so talk about is aligned to fit with. That doesn’t matter. Every Wikipedia article must have the same tone. I do agree that this article is in the layout of a personal essay, but that is not enough for deletion. If it can be improved and reworked into a Wikipedia article, then go help and fix it. Also, dream mentation does have linked sources. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9153032/ and https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-06910-004. Senomo Drines (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is fundamentally flawed in a way that cannot be fixed via editing, it's scope is WP:OR. It's irrelevant that there are journal articles that include the words "dream mentation" when you search for that string of words, none of those publications discuss theory or anything approaching the scope of this article's subject. Mentation within dreams falls within the scope of something like Neuroscience of sleep or Rapid eye movement sleep; it does not have enough literature or significance to warrant a standalone article, and the fact that "mentation" of any kind is not mentioned in either of those articles is evidence of that. - Aoidh (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The article is largely based on Jeannette Mageo's odd approach to dream studies through the lens of cultural anthropology/ ethnographic research; although in this case its more like case studies focused on individuals rather than a larger cultural study. The whole thing is rather far fetched as a basis for an article because it is the type of study that is highly subjective, not reproducible, and is not likely to be repeated due to its interdisciplinary design. As such, we aren't likely to have multiple sources supporting an article on this topic at any point in time.4meter4 (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Effectively an orphan article, backing one person’s pet theory. Nwhyte (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2022 (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.