Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real life (2nd nomination)

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. No consensus to move, needs to be specifically discussed on the talk page for achieving consensus. Cenarium ^Talk 16:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real life[edit]

I'm aware that it may be difficult to win support for deleting this article, since the topic is obviously rather a significant one. But the article itself is clearly "original research" (of the "Well, I know from everyday life that when people use this phrase, they sometimes mean it this way, so I'll add that into the article" variety) and doesn't discuss the topic or the concept in any substantive way. (There are three sources cited: two are types of dictionaries, and the third is Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Idiot, for a quotation plunked in the article with no discussion or context.) I suggest that it be deleted and that Real life (disambiguation) be moved to this title. Propaniac (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I said below, I'm reasonably satisfied with the suggestion to move the article to Real life (reality) and redirect Real life to the disambig page, but as some of the "Keep" votes are rather vague about how they'd feel about that, I'm leaving this discussion to an admin to evaluate and close. Propaniac (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reality. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move and Redirect, etc - I suggest the following:

Real life moved to Real Life (reality)

redirect Real life to Real Life (disambiguation)

Add Real Life (reality) to the Real Life (disambiguation) page.

Tag Real Life (reality) for cleanup --Pmedema (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this should already be covered in the article on reality. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until something substantial (well-sourced) can be written. Add a line at the top of Real life (disambiguation) that says Real life (often abbreviated to RL or IRL) is often used to refer to reality from inside an artificial environment or something to that effect. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 21:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reality Sceptre ^(talk) 00:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pmedema. JuJube (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Pmedema. giggy _(:O) 11:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I also concur with per Pmedema. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 06:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Emergent concept which is sufficiently well-documented and important to qualify for an article. This is not a good article, but the subject is notable. The concept of a division between "real life" and "online life" is relatively new, but obviously it looms over the internet, and you can frequently see reference to it here on Wikipedia. It would be silly to shoehorn this concept into the "reality" article, as it's primarily a social phenomenon relating to the internet and has little connection to larger philosophical or scientific ideas. Here's my quick test: 1. Is this concept real and important? (Yes.) 2. Is this concept documented? (Yes.) 3. Is this concept known by the name the article is under? (Yes, pretty much.) 4. Is this concept covered in the article we are proposing to redirect to? (No.) 5. Is this concept ever going to be covered in the article we are proposing to redirect to? (Unlikely.) 6. If so, we may be semi-permanently removing any coverage of this concept from the encyclopedia, simply because the current article is not up to snuff. In cases like these, the answer is to improve the article, rather than directing it to another article which has no information on the actual subject involved. Mr. IP (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per excellent rationale by Mr.IP. The reality article is no place for this topic, which concerns a term used to distinguish mediated experience from non-mediated (compare meatspace). It only takes a minute of research to discover that this topic is notable; see for example Jansen et al. (2000) "Real life, real users, and real needs: a study and analysis of user queries on the web ", Rasmussen and Jensen (1974) "Mental Procedures in Real-Life Tasks: A Case Study of Electronic Trouble Shooting", Byrne et al. (1970) Continuity between the experimental study of attraction and real-life computer dating.", Funk et al. (2004) "Violence exposure in real-life, video games, television, movies, and the internet", Bensley et al. (2001) "Video games and real-life aggression". I could go on. How anyone could conclude that this topic fails to meet the general notability guideline is beyond me. It appears that those looking to delete or redirect the article have neglected to do any research and have focussed mistakenly on the article's current, rather than potential state. Skomorokh 19:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:POTENTIAL is an essay, not a guideline; I'm aware of the opinion it expresses and find it overly optimistic. That being said, I'm reasonably satisfied with the suggestion to move this article to Real life (reality) and redirect to the disambig page; I was mostly bothered by the fact that anyone searching for substantial information on a topic by the name of "Real Life" is first sent to this terrible article with no worthwhile information on anything. (The article may have boundless potential to be informative, as suggested by your references, but it's certainly not meeting that potential right now.) Propaniac (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
```Keep```. Real life is /not/ the same as reality, but a notable concept emerging in the cyberspace era. It deserves an article. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 13:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I think Mr. IP did a great job opening up the strong justification for keeping the article, but I wanted to also oppose the rename. The second sentence of the reality article states that reality "includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible". The concept of real life and reality are completely separate: everything (real life or not) occurs in reality. The fact that I'm communicating with someone through a form of technology and not through spoken words while in physical eye contact with the other person doesn't mean I'm not in reality -- it simply means I'm not in "physical" contact with the person. I agree the article isn't well written and needs significant updating but this subject is significantly different than reality, it is noteworthy, and it is encyclopedic. Utopianheaven (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why you're opposed to renaming this article. The rename is an entirely separate suggestion than the merge to reality, and has nothing to do with what content is covered by the reality article. Is it just that you don't think Real life (reality) would be a good name for the page? In that case, could you suggest what other disambiguating parenthetical term would be more accurate? I find it poor logic to say that we should keep this article as the primary meaning simply because the suggested disambiguating title may not be the best one. Propaniac (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right, my comment was very focused on the suggested rename to reality, but a number of the other pages that are titled with "Real Life" deal directly with this social idea that is what is known as "real life". Doing a Google Scholar search on this stuff, there's really two things "Real Life" can mean: existing in fiction or having a physical-world interaction rather than a virtual or virtual-world interaction -- and academics have explored these interactions quite a bit. As an AfD discussion, I want to ensure that his page is kept. As a disambig discussion, it's not as clear cut as if it's something like biology or Chicago -- but for now, I believe it is a theme strong enough that it shouldn't be a just another link on a disambig page. Utopianheaven (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasons outlined above pretty well. I think the concept of the "real world"/"real life" is pretty well-defined, and we shouldn't kill this article just because it needs some editing. Jonathan (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since we are on a website populated by webgeeks, this is a valid article. However, a little copyediting wouldn't be a bad idea.--Bedford ^Pray 23:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that Real life was just moved. Enigma ^message 06:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BOLD - In and effort to be bold, I actioned the suggestions that I made. I feel that this AfD can be closed and that efforts can now be made to make the moved article Real Life (reality) into a better article.--Pmedema (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The trouble is, doing what you did was not the consensus at this AfD. Enigma ^message 06:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - sooo.....then how do you feel that this should be handled... I was just trying to do what I interpereted as consensus and helping out... If you feel differently, by all means, go with it... I'm just an editor.--Pmedema (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No big deal. It's a disputed AfD, so I suggest you let an administrator close it. ;) It's best to let the closing admin decide what consensus is. Just give your opinion and move on. Less hassle! Enigma ^message 06:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to what others have said, I just don't think the problems listed in the nom are sufficient to delete. There are tons of books out there about internet culture, and copyediting is easy. Notability, you cannot improve, but this article can be improved, and it is clearly notable. L'Aqùatique[review] 21:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to what others have said, I just don't think the problems listed in the nom are sufficient to delete. There are tons of books out there about internet culture, and copyediting is easy. Notability, you cannot improve, but this article can be improved, and it is clearly notable.BHOrchid (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...the hell? Propaniac (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wanted to note that most of the "Keep" votes don't include any objection to moving the article, so I would read the consensus as that Pmedema's proposal is acceptable (which is still my own opinion as well). Propaniac (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Real life (disambiguation). There is nothing attributed in the article that is more than the dictionary definition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 27 June 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.