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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dream sharing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a dictionary definition, nothing more. Dream sharing is sharing (as in telling people about) dreams. And, er, that's it. We already deleted it once, but the deleted content is different, that was about a fictional situation where people have the same dream. Is dreamcruft a thing? Guy (Help!) 21:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was really expecting to agree with the nominator here. But there's surprisingly a lot of sources available on this topic, including articles in scholarly journals: Dreaming[1][2], Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy[3], American Journal of Psychology[4]; and books published by recognized publishing houses: [5], [6] and so forth. The current article is ... not good, but isn't so bad as to break out the TNT. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn't a worthwhile independant topic. First Afd was very clear. Szzuk (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This does seem to be a worthwhile independent topic, as the sources identified by Squeamish Ossifrage demonstrate. "Dream sharing" has been the subject of scholarly discussion in multiple peer-reviewed journals, as well as in books, and has academic value in terms of psychology and anthropology, amongst other things. Moswento ^talky 08:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as found here in Google Books. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Looks to be sufficient sources to pass GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:46, 22 April 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.