Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 08:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Virtual Dreaming

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable book about a non-notable lucid dreaming technique, rather than being about a lucid dreaming technique. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no book review nor reliable source found.--Caspian blue 17:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Caspian Blue, you have searched Google News for a reliable source, but you haven't searched Google Books or the web. If you expand your search, you will find the sources you are looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomB33 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Virtual Dreaming is not simply a Lucid Dreaming technique. Lucid Dreaming is simply about awareness, not about control or direction of the dream. Virtual Dreaming on the other hand allows both awareness and a degree of control depending on the experience of the practitioner.


 * The clinical studies outlined in the book, Virtual Dreaming: Clinical Studies Show Successful Results, show significant breakthroughs to sufferers of pain, stress disorders and insomnia using the virtual dreaming technology. The results are ground breaking! Far from 'not notable'.


 * So this is a notable publication underpinning a breakthrough technology, and not merely a lucid dreaming technique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomB33 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. The google books result just reports that they made the book available to google books; no indication of notability or being from a respected publisher.  Artmedia Publishing is clearly not an academic or scientific publisher, so the book does not lend notability to the concept.  So we have not established any evidence that either the book nor the concept is notable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've cleaned up the article and references, not removing any material, but tagging everything with as much of a reference as has been provided.  In spite of the fact that I think the article should be deleted (and noting that Gary McNaughton is Artmedia Publishing, according to their web site), I've added as much material as I can find.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete This material clearly falls under the policy on Wikipedia NPOV for pseudoscience and fringe theories and the guideline Fringe theories. I have done a search on "Virtual Dreaming" in Web of Science and on Google Scholar, with no results on the topic.  It is thus pretty safe to say that there are no papers in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific topics on this subject.  Quoting from Fringe theories: "Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it."  As the two books referenced in this article are apparently written by adherents of this theory, they may not be used to establish notability, as per the above guideline.  Nor can I find any third party, reliable references documenting notability.  Thus the material fails Notability and Fringe theories and should be deleted. Locke9k (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.Locke9k (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, the sources in the article do not establish notability. Self-published books are a particularly poor source for articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Anaxial (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no prejudice to recreation if it does receive significant coverage in independent sources at some future date. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless someone can find some reliable references that aren't self-published.


 * Retain The Virtual Dreaming clinical studies report is edited by Grant H Moorpark and published by Artmedia. Mr Moorpark has no connection with Artmedia what so ever. He was contracted by the Australian Association of Applied Psychophysiology Researchers to edit the studies results. None of the books listed as references for this article are self-published. I don't know from where this misleading information has come. -- TomB33 (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Retain My understanding is that there are Virtual Dreaming research articles in Google Scholar, but these are not showing up yet because of delays in their system. This is leading edge research and there is always a lag before the mainstream media catches up. The publication, Virtual Dreaming: Clinical studies show successful results, is an edited summary of three independent research studies undertaken in different universities in Australia, and as such these are peer reviewed research results. — TomB33 (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Peer reviewed" means published in a peer-reviewed, mainstream scientific journal. Publication in a book doesn't fit that bill, nor does simply the fact of having been conducted at a university.  Secondly, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.  As a previous editor said, if later there is significant attention or sufficient peer reviewed publications an article can be created on this subject at a later time. Locke9k (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments (1) Article doesn't explain what virtual dreaming is and just rambles on. You know even the website www.virtualdreaming.org doesn't explain it, either.  (2) It might need renaming to "Virtual dreaming" unless "Virtual Dreaming" is a trademark.  Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Retain Added a third reference to the article. The books by Laberge and Yuschak are not by adherents to virtual dreaming, so they may be used to establish notability. — TomB33 (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please Desist from posting multiple bolded votes. You have posted at least three now, which can obscure whether there is a consensus.  Please go back and cross out your the prior votes accordingly.  Locke9k (talk) 13:40, 27 March 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.