Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality-based community (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Reality-based community
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence that this term has acquired any degree of notability since it was coined in 2004. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What's needed for a term like this to be notable? My instinct says that transwikiing it somewhere would be more sensible than deleting it.  Uses of it by reliable sources in the last two years in headlines: The American Conservative, Salt Lake Tribune, Washington Monthly, Politico, The Guardian.  So I emphatically disagree with deleting it as a non-notable phrase.  I'm just not sure whether it belongs on Wikipedia per se.  Neonchameleon (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 03:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 03:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 03:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- It's not ultra-prominent, but it is notable, given that it shows no signs of going away after nine years... AnonMoos (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. It doesn't matter whether this phrase has become part of the language. It's important that Karl Rove coined it. Because it makes him sound ridiculous, his supporters probably want to delete it. It should be not only be retained, it should be included in the wiki entry on Karl Rove. User: Schoolwell —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 30 December 2013
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Another recent use of the phrase in Rolling Stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.78.10 (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Neonchameleon's list is quite good, thank you. Although I would also not object to a redirect to a sub-section in Karl Rove or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelkvance (talk • contribs) 23:31, 3 January 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.