- 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. Per WP:SYNTH. The article notes that "the term is marginally used", asnd it is not at all clear that there is a common understanding what "reality shift" means. Sandstein 23:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reality shift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Essentially, this article is an original synthesis of disparate material. Some people believe in "reality shifts", but, as a concept, they are not consistent in their beliefs. There are no independent, reliable sources which provide a summative definition let alone a coherent exposition that we can follow into an encyclopedic article. We have a number of New Age proponents advocating for "reality shifts", but most of their ideas can be covered on their own respective pages. Having a single page devoted to a subject that no one can agree upon is essentially Wikipedia inventing a new subject. That's not what an encyclopedia is for.
The article was stared as a soapbox for Cynthia Sue Larson who uses the term herself, but has not received the recognition of independent commentators required to develop an independent page. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia Sue Larson.
ScienceApologist (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - sources given do not address notability issues.--Boffob (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it has sources that span more than 20 years. Just because it's something not every can agree on, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with including it. Christianity has all sorts of different variations in beliefs and Evolution and Creation proponents also have all sorts of different gradations of belief. Any soapboxing or POV can be handled through editing. There's no indication of any synthesis occuring (combining info from multiple sources into one article isn't synthesis. Creating new information based on the sources is). - Mgm|(talk) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as bubbling WP:OR cesspool. It is not in the least clear that anyone of any note sees these things as connected. Mangoe (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Once there is independent in-depth coverage that at least semi-rigorously defines this as a topic, there should be an article. I have not found any such. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.