- 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 Oneiromancy. And merge whatever editors deem appropriate from the history. I think we have consensus that this is not suited to have a dedicated article, and Oneiromancy seems to be the most consensual target. Sandstein 07:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Veridical dream
- Veridical dream ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:OR sourced only to a PhD thesis, very likely that of the article creator. The term is used, but the definition does not appear to be what is claimed here, and seems to vary depending on the source. There also seems to be very little that we would consider RS readily available on the subject. MSJapan ( talk) 00:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm finding similar results - the term is in use and some of the term's use is fairly similar to what's listed here ( like this source) but it's not exactly the same per se. For example, Llewllyn has this in part of its definition and what it does say is fairly vague. Basically the term seems to be used to describe a dream that could come to pass, could be something happening right now, or could be something from the past. It's generally seen as a vision. If this is kept then the article would need to be re-written to encompass this since the current version treats this term like it's something fairly concrete and specific. (I'm aware that Llewellyn isn't a RS on Wikipedia, I'm using it more as an example of what I'm finding.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Prediction#Supernatural_prediction, or alternatively Dream_interpretation. The latter may seem more natural but considering the current text in both articles the first option is preferable.
- The article is not really worth keeping as it exclusively consists of examples of (purported) veridical dreams in the literature, and moreover I do not see a practical way to merge to any of the targets I suggested. But the term itself is in use and WP:CHEAP.
- The creator might suffer from WP:CIR rather than COI, considering the long history of contributions (and the multiple talkpage notices, and the blocklog). Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability established by books: [1], [2], [3]. WP:OR can be fixed as WP:V is also satisfied by these sources. ~ Kvng ( talk) 19:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I see these sources were already brought forward by Kvng during deprodding. Did nominator not see these when deciding to bring to AfD under
WP:OR which is clearly countered by the existence of these sources?
DeVerm (
talk) 01:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, reposting the same material from the deprod and claiming that that meets notability isn't really adding anything of value to the discussion. If it met notability, we wouldn't be here. As for the question posed, the
WP:OR is the article as it stands, because it's sourced to a PhD thesis that was not published as a book. It is also OR because the definition given from that thesis does not match that given in any of the three sources in the deprod, and those three sources don't even agree with one another.
MSJapan (
talk) 01:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am sorry, I do not understand that. [WP:BEFORE] indicates that before nominating: "take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." This clearly means that potential sources may not be in the article yet and implies they should be added instead of the article nominated for deletion. Do I understand you correctly, that you considered these sources, then decided they were not reliable and thus send the article to AfD? Chapeau in that case! Or, is it that you do accept these sources as RS but that they are not in agreement with article content? In that case, correcting the article seems the correct option. I am not sure yet, but these sources all seem to be about what the article states I think. Can you elaborate on the conflicts you see?
DeVerm (
talk) 02:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not one of the sources used defines the term (and most of the other sources I looked at assumed the reader knew what they were talking about already). As Tokyogirl noted, it's one of three very different things. "Veridical" itself is related to veritas, or "truth". So a "veridical dream" would appear to be a "truthful dream." That would mean that it would be a dream reflective of reality. However, most of the sources use it in connection with prophecy, and prophecy is not necessarily true, and the heavily philosophical sources don't even agree on how many types there are. Therefore, to have a basis to write an article on the term, a source we use needs to explain its basis for use of the term, and they don't (and don't agree across sources). Moreover, being on Google Books isn't an indicator of reliability. So out of all the sources, we can't get a standard definition, and we don't know whose definition is "correct." We cannot therefore assume a position, because it's WP:SYNTH or WP:OR (depending). So I fail to see how a meaningful article that is compliant with policy results. MSJapan ( talk) 03:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am sorry, I do not understand that. [WP:BEFORE] indicates that before nominating: "take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." This clearly means that potential sources may not be in the article yet and implies they should be added instead of the article nominated for deletion. Do I understand you correctly, that you considered these sources, then decided they were not reliable and thus send the article to AfD? Chapeau in that case! Or, is it that you do accept these sources as RS but that they are not in agreement with article content? In that case, correcting the article seems the correct option. I am not sure yet, but these sources all seem to be about what the article states I think. Can you elaborate on the conflicts you see?
DeVerm (
talk) 02:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, reposting the same material from the deprod and claiming that that meets notability isn't really adding anything of value to the discussion. If it met notability, we wouldn't be here. As for the question posed, the
WP:OR is the article as it stands, because it's sourced to a PhD thesis that was not published as a book. It is also OR because the definition given from that thesis does not match that given in any of the three sources in the deprod, and those three sources don't even agree with one another.
MSJapan (
talk) 01:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I see these sources were already brought forward by Kvng during deprodding. Did nominator not see these when deciding to bring to AfD under
WP:OR which is clearly countered by the existence of these sources?
DeVerm (
talk) 01:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Oneiromancy - MSJapan has made a good case for deleting this article: it has had a "citation-needed" tag on it's definition for well over a year and no sources have been found that could provide it. There are sources discussing it, so that suggests WP:SYNTH to get to the definition used in the article, like MSJapan has mentioned. I tried but could not find a source for that citation either and thus my !vote to remove the content. This leaves the redirect because it is a term in use. I considered Dream_interpretation like suggested by Tigraan but think Oneiromancy is more specific. DeVerm ( talk) 13:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- You've identified some problems with the article and sourcing. I don't see a strong case for delete from you. Why do you you think we need to blank the content with a redirect? ~
Kvng (
talk) 14:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are right that I was at first a bit critical with the nomination by MSJapan. That said, they have answered my questions and addressed my objections effectively enough for me to !vote for redirect instead of a keep or merge. My arguments are listed above with my !vote but the
WP:SYNTH is the main one for blanking the content. We must have at least have a reliable secondary source that supports the definition as used for the article, plus support the rest of it, instead of synthesizing content from sources that are not even aligned everywhere.
DeVerm (
talk) 15:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem like a redirect to an article that doesn't use the term
veridical dream will fulfill the
principle of least astonishment. I think it better to land on a potentially flawed article about the subject than to be redirected to a related article that doesn't directly mention the subject the reader was looking for. The flaws here do not rise to
WP:TNT levels. We don't delete flawed articles, we improve them and AfD is not for cleanup. If the sources don't agree on a definition we simply give and cite multiple definitions. ~
Kvng (
talk) 05:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- The Oneiromancy article has it's definition as "system of dream interpretation that uses dreams to predict the future". It seems to me that we can rewrite that as "system of dream interpretation based on veridical dreams". I see it that it is part of the Oneiromancy article. The veridical dream article is only an unsourced definition plus three examples. There isn't much to TNT in my opinion when considering that a redirect to establish the term and link it to oneiromancy to establish it's links will have to do until a good source for the term definition can be found. You write that the sources don't agree on a definition but I state that none of the sources has any definition. DeVerm ( talk) 12:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem like a redirect to an article that doesn't use the term
veridical dream will fulfill the
principle of least astonishment. I think it better to land on a potentially flawed article about the subject than to be redirected to a related article that doesn't directly mention the subject the reader was looking for. The flaws here do not rise to
WP:TNT levels. We don't delete flawed articles, we improve them and AfD is not for cleanup. If the sources don't agree on a definition we simply give and cite multiple definitions. ~
Kvng (
talk) 05:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are right that I was at first a bit critical with the nomination by MSJapan. That said, they have answered my questions and addressed my objections effectively enough for me to !vote for redirect instead of a keep or merge. My arguments are listed above with my !vote but the
WP:SYNTH is the main one for blanking the content. We must have at least have a reliable secondary source that supports the definition as used for the article, plus support the rest of it, instead of synthesizing content from sources that are not even aligned everywhere.
DeVerm (
talk) 15:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- You've identified some problems with the article and sourcing. I don't see a strong case for delete from you. Why do you you think we need to blank the content with a redirect? ~
Kvng (
talk) 14:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 01:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 01:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I doubt anyone is arguing that the article, as it currently stands, is a GOOD article. But it does seem to have notability established, and as far as I understand it, the term is actually distinct from simple dream interpretation (which has seen use in psychologic study) and from prophecy (which is exclusively about the future, while this can apparently be about the present or past). The article is not very good right now, but it can be expanded and cleaned up, so we should keep it. AfD is not cleanup. Fieari ( talk) 05:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Redirectto Oneiromancy. Many sources have discussed dreams which subsequently actually come true. (Certainly not all dreams subsequently come true, or thdre would have been more, and more varied, sexual gratification in the lives of many.) Edison ( talk) 02:09, 9 July 2016 (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.
- 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 Oneiromancy. And merge whatever editors deem appropriate from the history. I think we have consensus that this is not suited to have a dedicated article, and Oneiromancy seems to be the most consensual target. Sandstein 07:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Veridical dream
- Veridical dream ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:OR sourced only to a PhD thesis, very likely that of the article creator. The term is used, but the definition does not appear to be what is claimed here, and seems to vary depending on the source. There also seems to be very little that we would consider RS readily available on the subject. MSJapan ( talk) 00:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm finding similar results - the term is in use and some of the term's use is fairly similar to what's listed here ( like this source) but it's not exactly the same per se. For example, Llewllyn has this in part of its definition and what it does say is fairly vague. Basically the term seems to be used to describe a dream that could come to pass, could be something happening right now, or could be something from the past. It's generally seen as a vision. If this is kept then the article would need to be re-written to encompass this since the current version treats this term like it's something fairly concrete and specific. (I'm aware that Llewellyn isn't a RS on Wikipedia, I'm using it more as an example of what I'm finding.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Prediction#Supernatural_prediction, or alternatively Dream_interpretation. The latter may seem more natural but considering the current text in both articles the first option is preferable.
- The article is not really worth keeping as it exclusively consists of examples of (purported) veridical dreams in the literature, and moreover I do not see a practical way to merge to any of the targets I suggested. But the term itself is in use and WP:CHEAP.
- The creator might suffer from WP:CIR rather than COI, considering the long history of contributions (and the multiple talkpage notices, and the blocklog). Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability established by books: [1], [2], [3]. WP:OR can be fixed as WP:V is also satisfied by these sources. ~ Kvng ( talk) 19:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I see these sources were already brought forward by Kvng during deprodding. Did nominator not see these when deciding to bring to AfD under
WP:OR which is clearly countered by the existence of these sources?
DeVerm (
talk) 01:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, reposting the same material from the deprod and claiming that that meets notability isn't really adding anything of value to the discussion. If it met notability, we wouldn't be here. As for the question posed, the
WP:OR is the article as it stands, because it's sourced to a PhD thesis that was not published as a book. It is also OR because the definition given from that thesis does not match that given in any of the three sources in the deprod, and those three sources don't even agree with one another.
MSJapan (
talk) 01:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am sorry, I do not understand that. [WP:BEFORE] indicates that before nominating: "take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." This clearly means that potential sources may not be in the article yet and implies they should be added instead of the article nominated for deletion. Do I understand you correctly, that you considered these sources, then decided they were not reliable and thus send the article to AfD? Chapeau in that case! Or, is it that you do accept these sources as RS but that they are not in agreement with article content? In that case, correcting the article seems the correct option. I am not sure yet, but these sources all seem to be about what the article states I think. Can you elaborate on the conflicts you see?
DeVerm (
talk) 02:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not one of the sources used defines the term (and most of the other sources I looked at assumed the reader knew what they were talking about already). As Tokyogirl noted, it's one of three very different things. "Veridical" itself is related to veritas, or "truth". So a "veridical dream" would appear to be a "truthful dream." That would mean that it would be a dream reflective of reality. However, most of the sources use it in connection with prophecy, and prophecy is not necessarily true, and the heavily philosophical sources don't even agree on how many types there are. Therefore, to have a basis to write an article on the term, a source we use needs to explain its basis for use of the term, and they don't (and don't agree across sources). Moreover, being on Google Books isn't an indicator of reliability. So out of all the sources, we can't get a standard definition, and we don't know whose definition is "correct." We cannot therefore assume a position, because it's WP:SYNTH or WP:OR (depending). So I fail to see how a meaningful article that is compliant with policy results. MSJapan ( talk) 03:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am sorry, I do not understand that. [WP:BEFORE] indicates that before nominating: "take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." This clearly means that potential sources may not be in the article yet and implies they should be added instead of the article nominated for deletion. Do I understand you correctly, that you considered these sources, then decided they were not reliable and thus send the article to AfD? Chapeau in that case! Or, is it that you do accept these sources as RS but that they are not in agreement with article content? In that case, correcting the article seems the correct option. I am not sure yet, but these sources all seem to be about what the article states I think. Can you elaborate on the conflicts you see?
DeVerm (
talk) 02:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, reposting the same material from the deprod and claiming that that meets notability isn't really adding anything of value to the discussion. If it met notability, we wouldn't be here. As for the question posed, the
WP:OR is the article as it stands, because it's sourced to a PhD thesis that was not published as a book. It is also OR because the definition given from that thesis does not match that given in any of the three sources in the deprod, and those three sources don't even agree with one another.
MSJapan (
talk) 01:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I see these sources were already brought forward by Kvng during deprodding. Did nominator not see these when deciding to bring to AfD under
WP:OR which is clearly countered by the existence of these sources?
DeVerm (
talk) 01:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Oneiromancy - MSJapan has made a good case for deleting this article: it has had a "citation-needed" tag on it's definition for well over a year and no sources have been found that could provide it. There are sources discussing it, so that suggests WP:SYNTH to get to the definition used in the article, like MSJapan has mentioned. I tried but could not find a source for that citation either and thus my !vote to remove the content. This leaves the redirect because it is a term in use. I considered Dream_interpretation like suggested by Tigraan but think Oneiromancy is more specific. DeVerm ( talk) 13:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- You've identified some problems with the article and sourcing. I don't see a strong case for delete from you. Why do you you think we need to blank the content with a redirect? ~
Kvng (
talk) 14:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are right that I was at first a bit critical with the nomination by MSJapan. That said, they have answered my questions and addressed my objections effectively enough for me to !vote for redirect instead of a keep or merge. My arguments are listed above with my !vote but the
WP:SYNTH is the main one for blanking the content. We must have at least have a reliable secondary source that supports the definition as used for the article, plus support the rest of it, instead of synthesizing content from sources that are not even aligned everywhere.
DeVerm (
talk) 15:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem like a redirect to an article that doesn't use the term
veridical dream will fulfill the
principle of least astonishment. I think it better to land on a potentially flawed article about the subject than to be redirected to a related article that doesn't directly mention the subject the reader was looking for. The flaws here do not rise to
WP:TNT levels. We don't delete flawed articles, we improve them and AfD is not for cleanup. If the sources don't agree on a definition we simply give and cite multiple definitions. ~
Kvng (
talk) 05:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- The Oneiromancy article has it's definition as "system of dream interpretation that uses dreams to predict the future". It seems to me that we can rewrite that as "system of dream interpretation based on veridical dreams". I see it that it is part of the Oneiromancy article. The veridical dream article is only an unsourced definition plus three examples. There isn't much to TNT in my opinion when considering that a redirect to establish the term and link it to oneiromancy to establish it's links will have to do until a good source for the term definition can be found. You write that the sources don't agree on a definition but I state that none of the sources has any definition. DeVerm ( talk) 12:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem like a redirect to an article that doesn't use the term
veridical dream will fulfill the
principle of least astonishment. I think it better to land on a potentially flawed article about the subject than to be redirected to a related article that doesn't directly mention the subject the reader was looking for. The flaws here do not rise to
WP:TNT levels. We don't delete flawed articles, we improve them and AfD is not for cleanup. If the sources don't agree on a definition we simply give and cite multiple definitions. ~
Kvng (
talk) 05:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are right that I was at first a bit critical with the nomination by MSJapan. That said, they have answered my questions and addressed my objections effectively enough for me to !vote for redirect instead of a keep or merge. My arguments are listed above with my !vote but the
WP:SYNTH is the main one for blanking the content. We must have at least have a reliable secondary source that supports the definition as used for the article, plus support the rest of it, instead of synthesizing content from sources that are not even aligned everywhere.
DeVerm (
talk) 15:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- You've identified some problems with the article and sourcing. I don't see a strong case for delete from you. Why do you you think we need to blank the content with a redirect? ~
Kvng (
talk) 14:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 01:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 01:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I doubt anyone is arguing that the article, as it currently stands, is a GOOD article. But it does seem to have notability established, and as far as I understand it, the term is actually distinct from simple dream interpretation (which has seen use in psychologic study) and from prophecy (which is exclusively about the future, while this can apparently be about the present or past). The article is not very good right now, but it can be expanded and cleaned up, so we should keep it. AfD is not cleanup. Fieari ( talk) 05:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Redirectto Oneiromancy. Many sources have discussed dreams which subsequently actually come true. (Certainly not all dreams subsequently come true, or thdre would have been more, and more varied, sexual gratification in the lives of many.) Edison ( talk) 02:09, 9 July 2016 (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.