Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality-based community

Reality-based community was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep.

Article got a vfd notice five days ago but appears not to have been put up for a vote. The article has been cleaned up significantly since the vfd notice was put up. --DMG413 19:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Ephemeral. The unnamed aide (bad sign) says that the US doesn't need to study anything because it creates reality and bloggers get happy and protest.  It hasn't really lasted yet.  When the usage outlives a frog, it won't be a neologism anymore. Geogre 20:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've seen pretty wide usage of this, and it seems an interesting and unprecedented distinction. Still, is it just a neologism?  Weak keep.  --L33tminion | (talk) 22:00, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Vigorous meme. Dr Zen 22:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete fvw* 00:33, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
 * Keep. If I hadn't read the original quote or its references, I'd look it up to find out what the hell it meant.


 * That said, the entry ought to be rewritten to make it more like an encylopedia entry. ''Reality-based community is a term that became popular among internet bloggers in the fall of 2004, generally in the phrase "proud member of the reality-based community", used to suggest the blogger takes an objective and empirical view of events. The term has been defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from [their] judicious study of discernible reality."


 * The source of the term is from is a quotation an article by Ron Suskind in the New York Times, who quotes an unnamed aide to George W. Bush in... yadda yadda. --Calton 00:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, what the hell -- I just went ahead and finished rewriting as above. Does it work better? --Calton 00:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oops, I think I deleted the vfd tag when I cut-and-pasted my rewrite. If so, sorry, it was unintentional. --Calton 07:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * With the recent changes, keep. Good job in saving this article.  Needs expansion. - Scooter 05:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep it. [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 06:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Widely used and possibly influential term. Article much improved since vfd notice added. Wilus 10:03, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism. jni 11:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It is a neologism, but one in fairly extensive use (I see it a few times a day in my readings) and rarely explained in context. (I always thought it was just riffing on "faith-based"). Keep. Shimgray 12:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak delete neologism. Weak in recognition of my personal disgust for the NYT article. Gazpacho 13:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, a notable meme. Andrew Levine 08:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep based on Calton's logic: this is something that will be looked up. -leigh 12:43, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable meme. --[[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 18:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Intrigue 20:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the phrase turns out to be a two-week wonder we can always delete it later. Tualha 14:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.