Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overactive imagination


 * 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 and redirect to Fantasy prone personality. Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Overactive imagination

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is simply a common English phrase, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. An AfD for Overactive Imagination (the formal, capitalized term) resulted in a redirect to Fantasy prone personality, but I don't see a verifiable basis for that, so do not suggest it for the uncapitalized form either. Agyle (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Since other one already links there, maybe it would be best to just redirect it, even if it's not the best outcome?  It would be kind of odd to only have one variation of a phrase redirect somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Fantasy prone personality per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As says, it would be odd to only have a redirect for the upper case version. Overactive Imagination is also the alternative lede title of the Fantasy article so it is logical.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I see the rationale for a redirect; my opposition is because Overactive Imagination seems to be a made-up psychology term coined by a first-day Wikipedia editor a week or two ago. Including typo redirects of made-up terms just seems to be compounding Wikipedia inaccuracies. Agyle (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I can guarantee it isn't a term "coined" by someone a week or two ago. There are many online forums and blogs that refer to people suffering an "overactive imagination", usually as a symptom of some actually-recognised disorder or in the context of the non-medical Overactive Imagination Disorder (OID) which a great many people (alarmingly) seem to have diagnosed themselves as having. It makes sense for us to have the title redirected as suggested above but it certainly shouldn't have its own article. Would suggest that Over-active imagination (a common alternate with hyphenation) also be created and redirected. Stalwart 111  00:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I consider discussion of overactive imaginations as different from discussion of Overactive Imagination (capitalized); and the authors of the separate Wikipedia articles about them seemed to agree. Though I admit I did not survey blogs and internet forums, and it does seem almost likely that people outside academia have used the term before. I'm not even ruling out the possibility that it occurs in scientific literature, but no references have been cited. Agyle (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's certainly possible and I didn't trawl them all to determine if the mentions were capitalised or not - all were unreliable sources anyway, so doing as much would be pointless. I think we're pretty much on the same page. Stalwart 111  05:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I assume that you read this: Fantasy proneness is a trait that can be equated with having an "overactive imagination". . --Bejnar (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Bejnar, no, your assumption was wrong. I also don't believe that was published in Monitor on Psychology; volume/issue? The link at the top of the cited page says "Readers should remember that these are papers by students, not psychologists," and the page in question has "peer commentary" from other students, with a followup response from the author. I would not consider that a reliable source. Agyle (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect as above. Stalwart 111  00:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect as above. See cite to above. --Bejnar (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As per my reply above, that seems to be a student paper, not a reliable source. Agyle (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be a student paper, but you cannot deny that it was peer reviewed. I stand by my analysis that the best outcome for Wikipedia is to redirect this, rather than delete. If nothing else, that might help stave off re-creation. --Bejnar (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2014 (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.