Talk:Mandela effect

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• False memory
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:False memory

Untitled

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mandela_Effect before creating an article at this location. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant article attempts

Folks, "Mandela effect" is covered by Wikipedia. Adding a garbage dump of random unsourced stuff-I-read-somewhere only prevents people from getting to the article that provides all of the properly-sourced information anyone needs about it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one comes to Wikipedia on the subject of the Mandela Effect to read the False Memory article. Having a Mandela Effect article that lists false memory reference as an "expert" explanation for a popular phenomenon that has attracted much online attention seems like an obvious solution and not having an article seems like an obvious copout, since the popularity of the subject-matter makes it obvious to any non-biased person that the topic deserves an article.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is meant to be a source of information about topics and subject matter, not a decider on what it deems correct or incorrect. Alf810 (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's been working on Wikipedia for over a decade, I have a pretty good understanding of what it is meant to be: A verifiable summary of what reliable sources say about the subject, presented from a neutral point of view. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wikipedia on-and-off since 2005, yes I know there are rules, but they are interpreted in varying ways. From Amazon Mandela Effect Books, a movie, news programs acknowledging it by name (and sometimes humoring the idea of its "out there" explanations), thousands of topics on Reddit and thousands of videos on Youtube. This article makes it sound like it's just one random person, Fiona Broome, who subscribes to the idea, when the popularity of it is strong and seems to be becoming stronger, again, allowing for it to have its own article.

Secondly, Wikipedia hosts a wide variety of less-noteworthy topics of the supernatural, myth (both ancient and internet), fables, paranormal tales, and others. For example, there's an article about some random creepypaste online Reddit poster 9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9 and various urban legends, myths, and supernatural claims, such as the Black_dog_(ghost), Black-eyed_children, and Baby_Train.

Lastly, the question is not whether or not the Mandela Effect is false memories, it's about whether or not it has reached a popular cultural level to merit an article. It will eventually become an article, I believe it is an inevitability, but if it takes a few more years, so be it. Alf810 (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original AfD was not "redirect" nor did it seem to have much participation, restoring for further discussion. -Andrew PNJJJ (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed as "delete", which is a more definitive decision than "redirect". I created a redirect later because Wikipedia does have some info on the topic, to help people find it. If you really think a worthwhile standalone article could be created, then do that as a draft and put it up for approval. But I can tell you that the article you restored would not be approved, because it was an objectively bad article: talking not about the real-world phenomenon of people who believe in this notion, but instead regurgitating a random list of things that they might believe. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]