Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simulated reality


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Simulated reality

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is original reasearch and speculation through and through. The concept itself is notable, but there is very little if anything at all that can be salvage from the current version. I say let's delete and redirect towards Brain in a vat which is the non-OR version of this page. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This one is actually more complicated than it looks. Anyway, the title "Simulated Reality" is much more professional than "Brain in a vat". So my say would be to merge Brain in a vat into this, because not all that is written here is OR. --> RUL3R *flaming 03:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This subject is clearly notable, and cleanup is not a reason for deletion. The content from Simulism should be integrated into this article, which would significantly improve the quality and referencing. The brain in a vat article is about a specific philocophical problem, while this article is about the more general concept. Perhaps at some point they might converge into one article, but I doubt it since the content is different enough that they should be kept seperate. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 07:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per NickPenguin; I'd endorse also proposal of merging Brain in a vat into it. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * keep, but seriously edit down. Actually this issue shoudl not have been raised while the merger issue is being debated. simulism should be merged with simualted reality. Brain in a Vat should not be merged. Although it is on a similar theme, it exists in a somewhat different context.(BTW, while Brain in a Vat sounds informal, it is in fact a phrse used by professional philosophers). 1Z (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:N. What is funny is that the nominator agrees that it is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the concept is notable, the content of this article however, is not. There is WP:N, but there is also WP:NOR and WP:SOAPBOX. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So you want the article deleted because it needs to be cleaned up? That's even more funny. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cleanup would involves deletion and rewriting of pretty much everything in the article, save perhaps the categories and interwiki links. That's a bit more than mere cleanup. Achievable cleanup is weasel word removal, POV neutralification, and so on, not an unsynthetizing of an article containing nothing more than original synthesis involving the removal of everything currently written in it. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're just assuming that it can't be improved without being deleted. I'd rather keep notable topics. Still funny. Joe Chill (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is that difficult. There are two well-reffed sections (Ceg omputability of Physics and Bostom's Argument) which can be kept. Completely unreffed sectins could be deleted wholesale. The best material for simulism could then be merged in.


 * Keep Notable topic, some parts are well written and sourced. Needs some cleanup, but not in as bad shape as nomination suggests. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The proposal of merging Brain in a vat into this article also seems sensible. --Klimov (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2009 (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.