Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second sight

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 delete. Weak consensus to merge/redirect but no consensus for a target Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second sight

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

The only source for the article is another encyclopedia. Also, the article presumes that some people have supernatural visions of future events-- kind of an odd position for an encyclopedia to take. PStrait (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article could certainly use more sources (and appropriate referencing/linking to the sources it does mention in the text). However, the presumption of "supernatural" phenomenon is a very widespread and commonly accepted belief among many people, cultures, and time periods. Reporting or describing such beliefs is certainly within the scope of an encyclopedia, and in fact is part of the intrinsic purpose of an encyclopedia. This is no different than an encyclopedia containing articles on various religions or even political platforms. Autumnalmonk (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the presumption that "supernatural" phenomena actually exist is widespread doesn't mean that an encylopedia ought to take such a stance. It is possible, I think, to describe a belief without adhering to that belief. Even if there ought to be a second sight article (and if there ought to be one, wouldn't more sources be required to prove that it is noteworthy?), I feel like this shouldn't be it.PStrait (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe merge a couple of the more interesting (less rhetorical) bits. I don't mind using the 1911 Britannica as a source, per se. However, I think there's just too much overlap with clairvoyance / remote viewing / Extrasensory perception (take your pick); all three of those articles are better written and use a wider range of sources, including more recent ones. bobrayner (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to precognition. -- BenTels (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Second sight" is a commonly used term with a specific cultural association and is significant in its own right, having a long history of belief and widespread acceptance. While related to clairvoyance / remote viewing / Extrasensory perception, it is distinct in itself and deserves it's own page (though this could certainly be improved in many ways). Autumnalmonk (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Insufficient grounds for deletion. Please see our deletion and editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to precognition. He iro 03:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or redirect to extra-sensory perception. If more sources can be found, then the article should be kept. If not, then redirect. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Precognition. We do not need multiple articles about the same thing under different names. Edison (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly a notable subject with a lot of reliable sources to add information from. Vodello (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into and Redirect to "Precognition". Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Precognition. The terms seem to be synonymous. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Redirect to Extra-sensory perception. I originally said (based on the misinformation given in the article) that the term was synonymous with precognition, that is, perception of future events - but it isn't. A bit of Google searching reveals that "second sight" refers to any kind of ESP visualization, whether it is of the future (precognition), remote events (remote viewing), etc. It's defined as "the alleged ability to foresee the future, see actions taking place elsewhere, etc.; clairvoyance". (A good example of why a Wikipedia article should not be based on a single source.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2010 (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.