Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The realm of possibility

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. Core desat 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The realm of possibility[edit]

WP:OR and WP:V. Note that this is not an article about the phrase the realm of possibility, which could conceivably be verifiable, but instead an essay about the realm of possibility itself. Could redirect to Possibility, but probably safe to just delete. —Caesura ^(t) 17:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from being rather nonsensical—"Realm of Possibility is infinite and multi-dimensional, but it is restricted to what is possible (emphasis mine)—this is clearly an essay. Maralia 17:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources. looks like WP:OR to me. -FrankTobia 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, unverifiable, and an essay.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow I'm new here. I think this essay can be helpful. However, I'm learning the rules. If this does not fit the specs of Wikipedia, please be so kind as to point the violation. As Caesura pointed out, this isn't so much about the phrase, as the idea/place. Is that the problem? You want history on the phrase? Then what? Can I post to that? Lord Challen 15:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Userfy as it is clearly an essay and WP:OR, though I certainly like it WP:ILIKE. Sadly, however it is not in this form an article. Perhaps as Lord Challen suggests it could be reformatted to a history of phrase article, but I doubt that would be notable enough.Earthdirt (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The realm of possibility is not a new idea, or place for that matter. The fact that everything I know about it is WP:OR is simply unfortunate. I actually tried to do some research on it and couldn't find any . . . . which is why I thought it would be nice to have it here. I'm sort of a spiritual guy and think of things in spiritual ways. I'm aware of the use of spiritual objects in everyday life. In a spiritual sense, The realm of possibility is as real as a Red Robin or Blue Whale. One of the things that got me hooked on Wikipedia is the spiritual perspective that is written in some of the articles. Sometimes when chasing a chain of related links you hit the exact thing you needed to understand something that might not been directly attached the orignal question. Spiritual objects are real . . . to some of us. Wikipedia should be everyone . . . . even the psychic, seer, nut case, or other [one off] type personalities in the world. This isn't a case of WP:ILIKE as much as it is I see, use, and thought others might find it to be useful. I don't know who [coined] the phrase, I don't know where it came form, or how long we have been using it. But I do know that it is a commonly accepted idea, term, phrase, and that it can be a very useful tool when brainstorming. If it will help, I will try to make it more neutral and not so much a promotion of faith, personal power, or so usable. However, I declare The realm of possibility to be as real as the nose on your face, (for those of you that have faces.) I find articles like this to be useful as articles on Metallurgy. Granted, most people think that spirituality is a matter of opinion, but there is consenous on many things. Wikipedia can be a place we hash out and find common ground with terms that we all use, but perhaps don't agree on. This is a real article. . . if badly written. I would love to see people edit it, refine, and allow it to take its place on the things that we use. This verifiable for the most part. Granted, I don't think we have authorities on The realm of possibility but that is exists, or used in thought process is absolutely verifiable, just ask anybody.Lord Challen (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My main objection to this article is that it is completely unsourced. I consider it original research because of this and because the facts aren't very "hard," that is, while the realm of possibility may be as real as a "Red Robin or Blue Whale" to you, I've never seen an instance of "the realm of possibility". I'd like very much to see some sources, even one, and even if it's not great. Oh, Lord Challen, I don't think you're supposed to vote twice, but discussion is definitely a good thing. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (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.