Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality shifting (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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  23:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Reality shifting
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Renominating. My reasons for nominations are that the article isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. My arguments are essentially the same as in the previous nomination, but my concern is not notability. Another reason for deletion is that to make the article fit for Wikipedia, it would need to be rewritten from scratch, so keeping this version would not be helpful for future writers, and it will only confuse and disinform future readers. Janhrach (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Spirituality,  and Psychology. Janhrach (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a good start and cross-referenced from other non-disputed articles. Information must be shared transparently, and I feel this is an honest attempt to share that information, even if only loosely conveyed.  I fear by deleting it entirely (without replacement or just editing) we lose at least some valuable information on subjective experience of this phenomenon, which has been recognized by a large group of people.  We need to learn more, then share more.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:B295:B200:DB2:6043:DC3C:D0E5 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedia articles should be sourced. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, summarizes knowledge – it doesn't serve as a place for publication of original claims/theories/research. Retention of unsourced claims is not a purpose of Wikipedia, even if they may be lost. If the claims are significant, they should be published outside of Wikipedia first. Janhrach (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * TNT - Even as a very new term (for a fairly old concept), there are legitimate RSs out there including a very on-point one from Somer, et al . The article as written, however, is simply bad. If nothing else set off alarums, most of the cites are from or about TikTok. I am rarely a fan of WP:TNT, as I feel it's the right answer only when an article is likely to significant mislead or misinform readers. That, however, is exactly what I see in this case. If TNT is not deemed appropriate, please consider me in favour of deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per WP:TNT. Treats it too seriously, doesn't even mention it's part of Harry Potter fandom, and not enough sourcing that clearly state that it's silliness. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:46, 10 September 2023 (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.