Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consensus reality

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was

Consensus reality
Basically original research, or an essay. Does not provide any indication that "consensus reality" is a term in use by social psychologists. --BM 13:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete.  There is already an article on the socially constructed reality, a topic in the sociology of knowledge.  There is an important book on that title by Peter Berger.   The Consensus reality article introduces a new term for the same concept and doesn't seem to add anything beyond poorly-written personal musings on the subject. Most of the article actually discusses the idea of reality enforcement  (which is redirected here) again without indicating whether this is a term used by sociologists or psychologists or providing background.   The article could just be deleted, but someone enterprising might find a few sentences worth merging into socially constructed reality.  --BM 14:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The proposal to delete is based on the bizarre assumption that "consensus reality" would have to be "a term in use by social psychologists".  It was and is used outside the field (for example, by Andre Breton).  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What is bizarre about it?  If you don't think this supposed topic lies within the discipline of social psychology, then make it sociology, cognitive science, or  you name it.   The point is, the article doesn't mention a single scholar, or anyone, who has ever used the term "consensus reality".  Socially constructed reality, on the other hand, at least seems close to the title of Peter Berger's book, "The Social Construction of Reality".   If it isn't a term of art in some discipline of social science, and it is not a popular catch-phrase or meme, then what is it doing with an article in the Wikipedia and where did the author get his information about it other than out of his own head?  --BM 20:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I've heard it used quite often in casual conversation it's definetly a meme. V 06:52, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The contents of the two articles don't seem to overlap sufficiently. Googling reveals that the term is in active if slightly unnerving use. -- Kizor 19:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks like almost all the uses one finds in Google are ufologists, etc, using the term to refer to "reality" according to those who regard them as whacko, as opposed to, you know, their "reality". --BM 01:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't grasp the difference between consensus reality and socially constructed reality. They seem to me the same concept with different names. The article is worth keeping on its own, but maybe they should me merged. JoaoRicardo 19:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur. Keep or merge, clean up in any case, but don't delete, and the term has enough currency to be at least a redirect. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:03, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, article needs cleanup. Megan1967 00:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  03:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Another weak Keep and cleanup. There seems to be a difference in connotation and perhaps denotation in the terms. The Social Construction of Reality has a whole lot of heavy academic baggage to go along with it (and is a mouthful to say). Consensus Reality seems to be a newer vintage (and is hip without all the heavy baggage and extra syllables). As BM has observed, it seems "consensus reality" is often used by those holding minority (or whacko) opinions to disparage what they see as the self-imposed blinders mainstream society enforces to avoid consideration of what the minority (or whacko) finds obvious. Seems to be yet another variation on Plato's Allegory of the Cave. older &ne; wiser 03:37, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I vote to Keep this article. I vote as decision method in order to decide whether to keep or delete, to be used the strong majority(2/3) decision method. I vote for the keep_or_delete decision to be valid for 12 months then reconsider. I vote for this Vfd poll to be legitimate only if after 7 days voters' participation will exceed 4% of the List of Active Vfd Voters. Finnaly I vote to let me speak and vote freely and stop bothering me with your POV "correct" deletion policy. And I am encouraging you to also vote for your favorite decision method, for how long the keep_or_delete decision should be valid (you may vote inbetween one second and eternity), and for the minimum participation percentage that turns this vfd poll legitimate (you may vote inbetween no_percentage_applies(0%) and 100%). Iasson 12:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * VfD is not the place for this rant. Wyss 22:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, needs cleanup. Wyss 22:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just wrote a new explanation for consensus reality. I hope people like it and I didn't do anything wrong. I left the lower sections as they were, though I'm not sure how well they go with what I wrote. This is my first time participating here at Wikipedia. Manjusri 21:04, 15 Jan 2005
 * Keep It's quite a common term. And if there are problems with the article itself they can always be fixed. V 06:52, 21 Jan 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.