Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality-based community (3rd 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

No indication of notability, cannot find a widespread use of the term in the sense in which it is described on the page; only in a very loose sense, with multiple meanings. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  00:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Multiply-sourced article about a phrase that was used often in partisan discussions within and between left and right a decade ago. Also note that the user who introduced the notability tag recently removed it, citing "minimal coverage found & cited." Indeed, there could be more evidence of notability here, though elapsed time makes that a bit more of a chore than it would have been back then. Another problem with sourcing is that it was predominantly used on television and online partisan media. Such media is only "reliable" as primary-source proof that it was used there, so further sourcing might face challenges by those who scrub such sourcing. Search for "reality-based george bush" to find many such references, including a Bill Clinton comment on this term. Still, though what's currently there is minimal, it forms enough of a basis to keep the article, which has already survived two deletion attempts. Calbaer (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Survived two deletion attempts" is a rather pointless argument – after all, consensus can and does change. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a point of argument, just a afterthought (albeit a bit of a frustrated one, since some articles seem to attract repeated AfDs, as though their detractors think, "This time for sure!"). Calbaer (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I truly had no idea this article had been AfD'd before until I saw that Twinkle had started the AfD page with "(3rd nomination)". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. While I don't remember seeing much use of this term recently, it was clearly (re: deletion discussion #2) used prominently enough just a few years ago to justify its continued existence as an article. Cthomas3 (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment While I don't have an opinion on whether or not the page should be deleted, I would point out a problem with some of the above arguments as well as those from previous deletion discussions – namely, that notability depends on direct and detailed coverage of a topic. Passing mentions or in-context uses of a phrase are not enough. In particular, not every neologism (such as this one) is suitable for encyclopedic treatment, no matter how commonly used by high-profile sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, it would be nice if the users here asserting the term's relevance to this or that phenomenon would cite some reliable sources rather than relying on original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem with the argument isn't that the term isn't used, it's that the meaning varies with use. The vast majority of usages I've found use it to mean "people who agree with me." I've seen it from both sides of the political isle, from liberal Christians (contrasting with fundamentalist Christians), from secularists (contrasting with religious folks), from social activists, etc, etc. I agree without reservation that the phrase is extremely common and often used. It's just that it's such a generic and vague phrase that you can't rely on mere usage to establish notability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't a phrase with a single meaning, and even if it were, this isn't supposed to be a dictionary. Anmccaff (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per two previous AfD discussions; and because Deletion is not cleanup. Article needs improvement to cover the history of the phrase and the competing political communities that claim the high-ground of being the true reality-based community.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It was more prominent 10 years ago than it is today, but I don't think that's a valid reason to delete Wikipedia articles. In any case (if you're looking for recent relevance) this is the other side of Alternative facts, and the Wikipedia article was mentioned in an interview in the Atlantic magazine just the day before yesterday. -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I remember the phrase, and the incident, as being very prominent in the media at the time. While the phrase could be used in other contexts, the meaning in the article refers to a specific use in a specific incident, and as such the meaning (as the subject of an article) does not vary, as MjolnirPants claims. Thue (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree that the contemporaneous sources more than guarantee the entry should be kept on grounds of WP:GNG; plus the cite from September 2017 from The Atlantic right there holds that the term was historic for over a decade, remains current, and that it must be kept forever. It is true that some of its adherents may finally have come to realize how embarrassing their self-given motto always was, but that should be no grounds for its expunging from the Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above. The recent citation in The Atlantic shows that it has staying weight as a term and meets WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The mention of the phrase in The Atlantic is from a Q&A with a rock musician who mentions the Wiki page and Ron Suskind's original article, by way of discussing a song on his current album. How exactly is that significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2017 (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.