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.
No reliable sources, no evidence of notability, not an asset to the encyclopedia. Not every "Requested article" is encyclopedia-worthy. PamD09:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you and other editors have time to upgrade every one of the large batch of recently-created stubs of this type, then please go ahead and do so. In the meantime, the encyclopedia is damaged by the presence of these stubs which comprise a loosely-thrown-together series of snippets which appear to have been found in a Google search by an editor who has no knowledge of their subject area, does not make any wikilinks, is happy to copy typos from their sources, etc. (The average reader would be better served by the raw Google search). They are still dominating the Category:Stubs, even though their production does now seem to have ceased, because they need so much work to be left in any fit state for an encyclopedia by a conscientious stub-sorter. Many of them, such as this one in its state when nominated, would be better deleted, without prejudice to re-creation when an editor was prepared to make a half-way reasonable job of it. PamD11:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was ready to say delete, but Google shows that some people are practicing what they call "shared dreaming," even though it is not quite what it is in the movies. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2011 (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.