Deletion of Reality-based community (3rd nomination)

Comment: While I don't have an opinion on whether or not the page should be deleted, I would point out a problem with some of the above arguments as well as those from previous deletion discussions – namely, that notability depends on |direct and detailed coverage of a topic. Passing mentions or in-context uses of a phrase are not enough. In particular, not every neologism (such as this one) is |suitable for encyclopedic treatment, no matter how commonly used by high-profile sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NEO)

Comment: per all of the above. The recent citation in ''The Atlantic'' shows that it has staying weight as a term and meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per  and . While I don't remember seeing much use of this term recently, it was clearly (re: deletion discussion #2) used prominently enough just a few years ago to justify its continued existence as an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED||WP:NOTTEMPORARY)