Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomsday event


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Doomsday event

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is indiscriminate per WP:NOT, and largely Original Research. The study of future events is known as future studies, and the study of existential risks ("doomsday events", TEOTWAWKI, "end of the world", etc..) is covered on Wikipedia in risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth and human extinction. Note the articles first footnote, which uses dictionary definitions to craft an original research meaning of the term "doomsday event". Note the list of scenarios, which lists anyone who happens to have used the term "Doomsday" (indiscriminate). Note the lack of scholarly sources or standard sources usually used in this field of study. A list of existential risks is already handled with better sourcing and discussion at risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. "Doomsday event" is one of many informal popular culture phrases without clear definition or meaning that should re-direct to risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. Stbalbach 01:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is quite similar to World War III, which was recently up for deletion. I agree that the entire premise is based on original research, gossip, and individual impressions of the subject, rather than a truly encyclopedically conceived article.  This irritates me, but the overwhelming consensus on WWIII was to keep it in spite of these obvious issues, and I expect the same reasoning will be used here . . . . - Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 01:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge nd redirect to Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth (which really needs a better title) Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already had two or three titles, all of which have proven problematic to various users. If you have any other suggestions see the lengthy talk page discussions. -- Stbalbach 19:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Eschatology.-- TBC Φ  talk?  03:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Eschatology deals with religion. See End of the world for how "end of the world" stuff is organized on Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 19:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but propose a merge if you want. And next time, if you want a redirect, be bold and do it yourself, or propose it on the talk page.  AfD is not for that purpose.  Beyond that, the page does have references, so I'm doubtful of the original research claim, and as the subject itself is the subject of much discussion, I don't see it as grounds for deletion anyway.  If it's not sourced now, there are sources that could be added. And I'm sorry, but how is the subject fit the indiscriminate criteria at all?  There is nothing whatsoever at indiscriminate which fits this page.    FrozenPurpleCube 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is indiscriminate because anyone who happens to use the term "Doomsday" is the criteria for inclusion in the article. It's just a random list of people who say Doomsday. Meanwhile people who don't call it Doomsday are not included because they never use the term. Thus the article has no focus or meaning. Conceptually, the concept is already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 19:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your usage of indiscriminate is not the same as meant by WP:NOT, which actually describes specific kinds of articles that are not allowed, as opposed to what you're talking about, which is more about the quality of the article. I don't agree that it's even true about the page, but it's not necessarily true, so it's an issue for clean-up.  This is a content dispute, and while somewhat complicated, it's not a deletion issue.  Merge would work just as well, though I think with the variety of possibilities, something of an organized effort would be appropriate to handle the subject. FrozenPurpleCube 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and redir. /Blaxthos 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect where? I see at least three possibilities in the nomination alone.  And I could probably be convinced of others.  FrozenPurpleCube 06:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The AfD is for redirect to risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. -- Stbalbach 19:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirects can be performed without deletion. You want Requested moves. - Mgm|(talk) 12:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be your proposal, but there are other possibilities, so who knows what Blaxthos wants? FrozenPurpleCube 20:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a specific phrase, and redirecting it to any of the general subject suggested would not make sense. The term has been used since the 1950s, and there are good sources. This is not OR. WW III was just recently kept, and correctly so. Same here.DGG 09:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good sources?? First of all, World War III has no sources whatsoever.  Second of all, Doomsday Event is the definition of original research.  While the lead does have good sources that properly define the term, the rest of the article is made up oof examples that certain editors think constitutes a "doomsday event."  None of the subsequent sources use the term.  This is synthesis of primary sources into a new interpretation.- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 15:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - this actually brings up a pretty complicated issue. The subject matter that this article touches on seems to be strewn about and duplicated across a number of articles, most of which don't really link to each other.  To say that this is 'bad form' is a bit of an understatement.  The way I understand it, the various "End of the World" scenarios can be lumped into two main categories.  Those that deal with a more religious, philisophical or othewise nonscientific approach covered in Eschatology and then the topic of physical and material threats to the Earth as described in scientific literature.  The ones brought up thus far in this discussion are Existential risk, human extinction and Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth.  There appear to exist other articles that touch on the subject, as well.  What we've got looks like a web of forks, and it's a mess.  What really needs done is to have this set of articles overhauled as a whole, merging and redirecting where appropriate, to eliminate redundancy and duplicate information as well as present the associated topics in a more logical manner.  For the time being I would propose to merge this article with Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth but the real solution to this problem involves a lot more work. Arkyan 15:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, there's some complicated issues here, there are religious concepts and scientific concepts, and a lot of words for basically the same thing. Perhaps there needs to be something discussed on the Village pump?  FrozenPurpleCube 18:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That might be wise. This issue really goes beyond the scope of what this discussion can cover here. Arkyan 18:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been dealing with this issue for years. End of the world shows how it is organized. There is religion, science, myth, fiction, cosmology and philosophy. It only gets complicated when editors keep spawning new articles that duplicate what is already been done, calling it various new names. Doomsday event is, conceptually, a duplication of risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth, thus the purpose of this AfD. -- Stbalbach 19:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, risk for civilization, humans and planet Earth was created March 11, 2005 while Doomsday event already existed on October 29, 2004. So risk for civilization, humans and planet Earth is the duplicate, not the other way around. - Mgm|(talk) 12:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * True, what I meant was "Doomsday event" and "risk for civ" didn't start to overlap in scope until recently, after "risk for civ" had been around a while. -- Stbalbach 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, perhaps you should have proposed a merger instead. Not sure if I agree, as I don't know that this article has to be a duplicate, and honestly, I like this title better than that one. But it's not really a deletion concern. However, I do think it might be worth setting up a Wikiproject or discussion on it over all. I put up Village pump (miscellaneous) as a start, though I don't know that it's the best place, and it'll probably end up elsewhere. Might even need a short-lived Wikiproject.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The problem is there is no commonly accepted name for these events, so we "make one up" on Wikipedia. But every time someone makes up a name: Doomsday event, TEOTWAWKI, End of civilization, End of humanity, End of the world -- someone else comes along and says it is original research and/or the articles doesn't encompass what the title says and/or the title is poor and a new one is needed etc.. it's been an endless cycle of discussions for years, in AfD's, Rename requests and Merge requests. At this point I think existential risk might be the best place. -- Stbalbach 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd say the problem is not that there is no commonly accepted names, but that there are several commonly accepted terms (Besides Doomsday, Apocalypse, Armageddon, Cataclysm, Holocaust, even World War III and Ragnarok might well be considered generic terms in some lights), each of which may have a slightly different meaning, and the articles themselves do have some differences in them, but the problem is not in the existence of the articles themselves, but the lack of a cohesive group consensus on how to cover this subject. As I think more about it, I would suggest trying to establish some kind of Wikiproject so you can bring people together on this subject.  I would also recommend not going the AfD route, that's rarely conducive to getting people to work together, as it comes across as a slap in the face.  And no, I don't recommend existential risk for the article title, as it is an obscure term, and not in common usage.  I would prefer something closer to the vernacular.  Feel free to title the Wikiproject with that name though, should you wish to go that route.   FrozenPurpleCube 19:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are probably right, the problem is large and complex enough to warrant a Project. It surpasses talk page discussions and AfDs. It involves probably a dozen articles or more and will require some serious work to figure out all the pieces, the best way to assemble them, and establishing consensus. I'm not even sure I want to take it on, it's like herding cats. This AfD shows how wide and disparate the views are, and how strongly people feel about it. -- Stbalbach 04:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep IMHO the Doomsday event article is far, far superior to the Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth article, which, in addition to being horribly named (despite racking my brain, I can't think of any articles with a 7 word title but no parenthesis) is stuffed chock full of much more original research than Doomsday event.  The doomsday event article is basically a list of other WP articles that share this common attribute: I think of it like a standard list article, an highly useful annotated roadmap to other articles that share this common attribute. Doomsday event could certainly be improved: the references section is terrible, and it would benefit from citing references to the use of the term, but it does not need to be deleted. UnitedStatesian 19:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep and start merging now that this problem is identified. I agree with UnitedStatesian, a 7-word title (with a comma even) is overkill, and I would never find it. However, I have in the past actually read the Doomsday event article. Comment I'm curious by the way, which of these similar articles is linked to the most? Davidicke 17:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article used to be called End of civilization, but then we got caught up in what does "end" really mean and what does "civilization" really mean. It really is a very difficult problem, "Doomsday event" has the same problems, even worse really. "Doomsday" is purely subjective and not a neutral descriptor. We all "think" we know what we mean when we say "Doomsday", but it only makes sense in the context of its usage, it doesn't work as a standalone objective statement of fact.-- Stbalbach 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep "Doomsday event" is the term usually used when referring to a destructive event like this (see Doomsday clock too) and it clearly isn't original research. If anything risk for civilization, humans and planet Earth should be merged into Doomsday event. Mgm|(talk) 12:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no "usual" term, that is the problem, there are lots of popular culture phrases that are problematic. Existential risk is probably the closest we have to a neutral and accurate term. -- Stbalbach 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge somewhere. I think existential risk is probably the best place for the content. JulesH 16:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And while we're at it, Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth should possibly be merged to the same place as well. JulesH 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is probably the best solution long term. There is no waccepted scholarly term for the concept, but this is as close as it gets. -- Stbalbach 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds great. Existential risk is probably better than Doomsday event as is said above. Davidicke 20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and continue to improve. Off and on I've been doing newspaper and magazine archive searches (with the intent of rewriting note 1 to provide detailed info about usage history) and have collected raw data tracing the usage of this term back to the mid-1980s.  "Doomsday event" is an umbrella term describing a class of events of a certain kind, and it has at least 2 decades of history.  As such it warrants an encyclopedia entry, especially an entry in the most comprehensive and up-to-date encyclopedia in the world.  As for the proposed merge, I do not believe that "doomsday event" is equivalent to "existential risk."  A risk and an event are two different things.  I think the article can be improved, but I do not see it as mostly original research.  It is simply a descriptive list of specific sorts of events which fall under the umbrella term "doomsday event," and it links back to many of the detailed articles on those specific sorts of events.  -- WikiPedant 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as redirect I agree with the nominator. However, regarding merging, I'd hesitate before copying any potential OR to a new article. Xaxafrad 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC) (see 2nd comment below)
 * Comment I, as much as anybody else, I think, would like to see the various disparate articles mentioned throughout this discussion merged or otherwise coordinated some how (maybe a template, rather than a dab page?). However, AfD is not the place, maybe Talk:End of the World would be better (the title is similar to History of the World, and they've had a similar discussion over title issues). Is there a seconder? Xaxafrad 00:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded! It would be nice to have all of this in one or two centralised articles, but that editorial issue is usually better resolved on talk pages rather than AFD.  -- Black Falcon 23:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2nd comment I've browsed around the other articles related to this topic, and compared a few specific doomsday events (the first 4 or 5 of the natural events) to the article Risks to civilization...yada, yada, and this article really seems redundant. If End of the world is taken to be the top-level concept, all other pertinent articles seem linked therefrom within 1-3 links (Eschatology, Doomsday, even End of civilization), therefore I would clarify my vote as Delete, replace with redirect to the Risks article, unless significant material is unique to Doomsday event (which should then be stylized with prose). Xaxafrad 06:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and discuss the fate of the article on its talk page (or, if a merge is desired, the talk page of its intended destination), per my comment above. -- Black Falcon 23:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Originally commented on article's discussion page: It seems logical to look at precedence as a way around the confusion.. One choice with a similar, broad range of scenarios, implications, and so on, would be the Origin of life article.. rather than reinvent something. It seems like this article successfully entertains the spectrum of theories and topics, and appears to act as a good start for the topic tree as a whole, and might be helpful in setting up an appropriate framework for the "End of Life" (or whatever name it is given).. WarBaCoN 17:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep not even a question, its a valid article. Mghabmw 07:05, 15 March 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.