Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality distortion field

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, with no prejudice against further discussion regarding merge or redirect. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reality distortion field

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic is unique to Steve Jobs and the majority of the text is already on the page devoted to Steve Jobs. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We need a policy related nomination for deletion. I cannot fathom the rationale here. It is a neologism, for sure, yet it seems to be in reasonably widespread and cited use. The article does need better references, yes, but it seems capable of being better referenced. Fiddle Faddle 23:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the argument is that this is not a notable topic in and of itself; it's merely an epithet used primarily about Jobs, and very secondarily about other people in and out of Apple; but has no notability independent of Jobs. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Steve Jobs, the content that is not already in that article is 1) not reliably sourced or 2) about "Reality distortion field" only via WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- another option that would be more work is rename and expand into something along the lines of Public perception of Steve Jobs-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If most of the content is already on the Steve Jobs page, then Merge is a better option.--Auric talk 23:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems reasonable as a standalone topic. And it meets the GNG handily. Protonk (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet WP:NEO? there are uses of, but not commentary about-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since it also has a sourced attribution to Clinton, merging or redirecting with Jobs is not appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the phrase when applied to Clinton is via a blog, not a reliable source and for clinton it has a completely different meaning - for Jobs its a positive meaning reflecting his charisma in talking people into his dreams; when applied to Clinton it is a pejorative insinuating that everything surrounding him is a field of lies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steve Jobs. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Steve Jobs is already at 10,000 words-- some content has to go to subarticles. WP:NOTPAPER. Darmokand (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect, there is really no valid rationale for a deletion here, at best a merge proposal could be in order, but the article sounds as a legitimate spinout. Cavarrone 13:39, 26 September 2014 (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.