Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shared Dreaming


 * 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. v/r - TP 03:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Shared Dreaming

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No reliable sources, no evidence of notability, not an asset to the encyclopedia. Not every "Requested article" is encyclopedia-worthy. Pam D  09:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It's easy to find sources and evidence of notability such as Collective Dreams. Please see WP:BEFORE.  Warden (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you and other editors have time to upgrade every one of the large batch of recently-created stubs of this type, then please go ahead and do so. In the meantime, the encyclopedia is damaged by the presence of these stubs which comprise a loosely-thrown-together series of snippets which appear to have been found in a Google search by an editor who has no knowledge of their subject area, does not make any wikilinks, is happy to copy typos from their sources, etc. (The average reader would be better served by the raw Google search). They are still dominating the Category:Stubs, even though their production does now seem to have ceased, because they need so much work to be left in any fit state for an encyclopedia by a conscientious stub-sorter. Many of them, such as this one in its state when nominated, would be better deleted, without prejudice to re-creation when an editor was prepared to make a half-way reasonable job of it. Pam  D  11:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not our editing policy. Do you have a policy-based argument, please?  Warden (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I was ready to say delete, but Google shows that some people are practicing what they call "shared dreaming," even though it is not quite what it is in the movies. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Ample news coverage. Click Google news archive search and read through the results.  Its a real thing.   D r e a m Focus  18:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * delete, as PamD says: The average reader would be better served by the raw Google search - Nabla (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, merging Oneironautics into it and then renaming to the common research term of Dream telepathy. The subject is notable both in old and new mainstream fiction and as a parapsychological field of study, with plenty of coverage by prominent researchers and authors - Montague Ullman, Stanley Krippner, Stephen LaBerge, Keith Hearne, Patricia Garfield and so on.  WP:Potential very much applies. K2709 (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2011 (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.