Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by GDP (nominal) in 2050


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP (nominal) in 2050

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

These are estimates from Goldman Sachs as to what GDP will be forty years from now. This totally fails WP:CRYSTAL and places undue weight on Goldman Sachs as a source. Any attempt to balance it by including other sources would likely run into problems with synthesis. Above all, though, I think WP:CRYSTAL is the biggest problem by far. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - interesting but WP:CRYSTAL is definitely a huge problem. There are a whole heap of assumptions here - including the ongoing existence of these countries as the entities they currently are. With the volatility of borders in the recent past, I would have thought it safer to predict change in the next 42 years rather than no change. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I entirely agree with the nominator's reasoning. Anything prediction passed the 2018 is subject to too many variables to be reliable or useful. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not entirely sure how much CRYSTAL there is in this (the speculation is at least sourced), but Wikipedia is not in the business of mindlessly reproducing estimates from a single entity. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although I'm tempted to call this the epitome of CRYSTAL I'll concede since it is sourced it doesn't fall into that category. Nonetheless this is still awfully speculative and is offered with zero context and it comes from only one source. Also, one wonders if the Goldman Sachs report is considered in any way accurate given current changes in the markets - just this morning Japan's stock market dropped to its 1982 levels. Maybe merge with the article on Goldman Sachs, but I see no viability as an independent article. 23skidoo (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - 2050 is too far in the future to be able to predict something like this. I could see adding a blurb to the Goldman Sachs article about them making the report and including a link to it, though. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that it does not merit its own article. This list is already reproduced in the BRIC article. Therefore, it is unnecessary. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are other places in the encyclopedia where this may be included. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow... strong delete. Even more than the crystal ball thing, I'm tempted to call this a hopeless POV case since it so strongly privileges the predictions of Goldman-Sachs. Fumoses (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this crystal ball. Looks like it might be snowing.  Cliff smith  talk  17:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL, and suggest speedy close per WP:SNOW. &mdash; neuro(talk) 17:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — They forgot to factor in when alien whales from Neptune invade Earth in 2037, destroying 1/3 of Earth's people in the process before being taken out by the nukes Russia will have hidden for such a long time ago. At least, that is according to my crystal ball. MuZemike  ( talk ) 17:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. An asteroid will strike the Earth in 2029, therefore destroying the pedia' along with the world :D RockManQ  (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What?? Wikipedia to be speedy deleted by an asteroid? MuZemike  ( talk ) 03:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, yes. Heh, RockManQ  (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:CRYSTAL oh my gosh  JBsupreme (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2008 (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.