Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivid dream


 * 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 redirect to Lucid dream. redirects are, indeed, cheap. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Vivid dream

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"Vivid dreams" does NOT mean any dream, that is remembered. Not even the source (Footnote 1) does assert this. "Vivid" means "lively". The whole stub is without any sense.-Mr. bobby (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I concur. Moreover, I suspect that the only reason this page exists, with its sources apparently in pop psychology, is to bolster up the contentious material at the second paragraph of, which confounds two distinct phenomena: "a 'vivid' or 'lucid' dream".  I'm considering removing that whole second paragraph from the section because of its "straw man" argument.  yoyo (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't appear to be a well defined medical term. Not even convinced redirecting to lucid dream would be justified. PriceDL (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * well, let us delete it. i do not know the correct procedure. so someone has to acomplish it. Mr. bobby (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note this nomination was missing the template, and was not properly listed for discussion. I have fixed both, but please consider the delayed listing when deciding on a close. Monty  845  00:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not a scientifically/medically recognized term. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The phrase is not notable, and the content is terrible. It's sourced, but WP:OR, saying things that are not in the sources. -- 120.17.44.177 (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I have tended to use the two terms interchangeably. Based on, I think a redirect wouldn't be a bad idea. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Lucid dream, as this is a likely search term and the stub amounts to non-notable WP:OR. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * delete why redirect? the term "vivid dream" is not used at all in literature. the kind of dreams, in which a dreamer is aware of dreaming, is called a "lucid dream". Mr. bobby (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Because Redirects are cheap and a person who doesn't already know the literature and therefore the correct search term may plausibly search for this term. That's the purpose of redirects, after all: to guide a user to the correct term when they can't search for it out of ignorance.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * the redirection of a non-existing term is nonsense. it is not used in any serious publication. the stub in discussion here was fun for a drunken guy. the lemma simply has to be deleted.Mr. bobby (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me say it a different way: It doesn't need to be in "the literature" for it to be "real". The question is: Is a user, one who doesn't know the literature and therefore doesn't know correct terms plausibly likely to use "vivid" to search for their target? I think it is eminently likely.  Who cares what "serious publications" say?  This isn't a question of sourcing, it's a question of uninformed user behavior.  Under the standard advocated immediately above, we'd have no redirects at all.
 * By the way, by both nominating this and then placing a bolded !vote in your reply above, you've effectively double-counted yourself. You will want to fix that to avoid confusion.  Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Who cares what "serious publications" say? you do not argue. you have no idea of psychological terms. and you produce an encyclopedia for a mental vacuum. end of discussion with you. Mr. bobby (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What, no admiration for my excellent grasp of sentence structure, capitalization and punctuation? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to lucid dream for the reasons given by Eggishorn. --pmj (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * as Heinrich Heine wrote: "no one is ever so crazy that he would not be able to find someone even crazier who understands him." Mr. bobby (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheer up, Mr. bobby. One day you'll find that special person. --pmj (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Many laypersons use the term "vivid dream" when they mean "lucid dream". Bearian (talk) 01:58, 14 March 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.