Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010s


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

2010s

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is not an almanac. Vassyana 02:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons and duplicate content:


 * Delete The 2010s are mostly crystal ball stuff, without solid verification, and the later decades cannot be any better. Placeholder account 03:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reasonable Keep Some of these articles are just a bit silly in terms of content. Ringo's 100th Birthday?   Why not any of the other people born in that same yeah?  OTOH, keeping track of some of the fictional events is somewhat more reasonable.  Nor do I have a problem with the concept of the article itself, given that historical years exist as I mentioned above.  Maybe a severe cleanup to remove some of the trivial stuff?  FrozenPurpleCube 04:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC
 * Keep 2010s at the very least. Cleanup the rest, if kept. FWIW, Wikipedia most definitely is an almanac. Resolute 04:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Useful information is present in many of these articles, including strongly predicted events and occurrences. Also see the pronunciation section of 2010s, it has plenty of sources. &mdash; John Stattic (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and close. I have nothing but respect for Vassyana who helped me through a painful mediation awhile back.  But Wikipedia very explicitly does incorporate elements of an almanac &mdash; the first sentence of the Five Pillars.  Sourcing should be improved to remove crystal-ballery, but sourced information about certain to happen future events is perfectly encyclopedic and in fact is encouraged per WP:CRYSTAL. --JayHenry 05:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close. This is just silly, these decades will come to pass, they are not crystal balling or non-encyclopaedic. Some of the content on those article may be, but not the articles themselves. Ben W Bell   talk  07:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nominator comment. Will a sysop please close this as speedy keep, per consensus and WP:SNOW? I would close this myself, but non-admins are discouraged from closing such cases in the deletion policy. Vassyana 08:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, have the keepers even looked at the articles? They're a grab-bag of speculation, guesswork, 100th anniversaries and fiction. In 2100s, we learn that the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calenders will reach 14 days, Australia will celebrate its 200th birthday, humans colonize Mars according to a Star Trek Voyager episode and a new ice age will begin according to video game Battlefield 2142. It's the same for all the articles.-- Nydas (Talk) 09:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment So you're saying that the Australian bicentennial is non-notable? I doubt Australian editors would think that. In fact, they'd probably think the Australian bicentennial was a far more important event than the American bicentennial was. -- Charlene 12:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We have no way of knowing whether it will be notable at the time. For all we know, Australia won't exist, or it will adopt a different founding date, or people won't even care about arbitary numbers of years. It's the same for the thousands of potential 'anniversaries'.-- Nydas (Talk) 21:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * However, the odds of, say, Australia suddenly disappearing are next to nil. mike4ty4 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not our place to weigh up the odds of which countries will still exist in a hundred years time. Should we have the 300th or 1000th anniversary of Australia as well?-- Nydas (Talk) 09:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - if some of the predicted events are silly then they should be edited out. andy 09:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - but delete unsourceable predictions within these articles. Think outside the box 09:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If deleted I could find the info on other site on the web Bb100 12:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep 2010s would have to be recreated in three years. It's nonsense to delete a page knowing it'll have to be restored. Aminullah 13:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Australian bicentennial and all that is fine, but the fictional stuff has to go. Say the wikipedia is still around in 2099 and it is time to compile notable events of the year.  Is the fact that the events of Judge Dredd apparently begin in 2099 notable?  Highly doubtful.  If someone really thinks that this stuff is important, then follow the 2006 in fiction, 2007 in fiction model, perhaps. Tarc 13:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say that it certainly is, given that Judge Dredd is a reasonably notable comic book. I've no objection to spinning off such matters into their own article though.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep &mdash; Some astronomical events are certain and should be retained. The various anniversaries should be tossed, since they are already covered by the appropriate year articles. (Plus their selection seems PoV to me.) &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. If there are notable facts included, they should be moved to more appropriate pages. (I.E. Australian Bicentennial to the page on Australia.) D0ggieM0mma 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as speculative crystal-balling garbage. Valrith 21:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep 2010s but Delete the later ones. Most of this stuff is trivial (such as anniversaries).  The fictional references are interesting, but I question whether they make the time frames notable:  I am much more likely to be interested in the fact that a certain Star Trek episode is placed in a given decade than that the decade is the one in which that episode is placed. As for the astromonical predictions:  Those are also nice, but IMO Wikipedia is not an almanac (and to the extent that those events are notable this is a very inefficient way of presenting them).  Only the 2010s is comprehensive and composed mostly of notable material. --EMS | Talk 21:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly keep: It could be kept but I'd suggest to remove the really speculative parts, and leave only the things that are reasonably certain to happen. mike4ty4 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia IS an almanac. --- RockMFR 06:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongest keep: Those of saying "crystal ball" are poor closed minded people who don't look forward, at least you look like. It'd be quite hard to find information of what will happen in a thousand years or more anywhere else on the web. If that's human knowledge, that should be stored on Wikipedia as it's Wikipedia's main ideal. Or are you saying you're not gonna live for 2011? If there's no future for you, there isn't life either. Stop living in your human world, 1000 years are nothing when you've lived 4,600,000,000.--Fluence 23:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP: I see that the 2010s, as they are only 3 years away, should be kept as an article. I can agree however that the 2020s, 2030s, and beyond should be deleted as they are really far away. However the 2010s are close enough to be an article. (Tigerghost 14:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment: I look forward to the Grunge revival of the 2010s... haha. (Tigerghost 14:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Keep all of them unquestionably -- we have articles on telescopes to be (James Webb Space Telescope, for example) and apparently Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball - but this Telescope may never come to exist... Booksworm Talk to me! 21:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * keep please these decades are important and meet our five pillars too
 * Keep It is interesting to note the astronomical events that are predicted throughout these decades. If nothing else, retain that information as it is highly predictable.
 * Keep The 2008 is a future page - it is excellent in quality, excellent in value, and serves as an excellent foundation for tomorrow's work. The the other future pages certainly get a bit flaky at times, but they also are useful and they are fertile ground for development. If someone is looking for any of these pages, they should find them. Alsee 17:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.