Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of predictions


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

List of predictions

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A perfect example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Mangoe (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete An incoherent mashup of various types of predictions, from scientific hypotheses to a prediction that aircraft would take millions of years to invent. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 16:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's the full news article on that just in case it seemed interesting: LINK PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Science, Economics, Social science,  and Technology. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 16:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'd be more inclined to keep this if it was sourced. Little to no sourcing, predicting this gets deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete It list incorrect predictions such as the one that it would take "one to ten million years for humanity to develop an operating flying machine." The scientific predictions make no sense at all.  Scientists mention what they believe is true, and later evidence is found to prove it.  This list just has a lot of nonsense on it. Category:Prediction exist, but that's just any book that ever predicted anything, some of them coming true, and others not.   D r e a m Focus  17:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: our notability guideline for lists, WP:NLIST, and our list guideline, Stand-alone lists, require:
 * The topic itself (the subject of the list) must be notable. Major predictions are notable.
 * Individual list items must be properly referenced. If they already have their own properly-referenced articles and those articles support inclusion in the list, that suffices. Otherwise, items have to be properly referenced. They do not have to be individually notable on their own.


 * This article meets the first criterion and many of the items meet the second criterion. Items that don't meet #2 should removed until referenced.


 * This leaves WP:SALAT ("Appropriate topics for lists"):
 * "To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and scope of lists."
 * Over the long run, this list's criteria are too open-ended but that doesn't mean the article has to be deleted now. We are required by our deletion policy to consider alternatives to deletion (WP:ATD); I see 3 possibilities:
 * Clean up the current list. For now, let it grow as is until it's too big, then subdivide it into smaller lists.
 * Clean up the current list and impose some sort of limitation on the criteria, such as only predictions notable enough to have their own article. Also, define "predictions" ("predictions of events likely to have a national or global effect", etc.)
 * Go ahead now and split the list into smaller sub-lists with well-defined criteria. One possibility is to just use the article's section headings as potential sub-lists.
 * As for Category:Prediction, I believe a category is inadequate as an ATD. This is because the general reading public may not know about our categories or how to use them to find things.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you see anything on the list worth keeping? There are a vast number of science fiction books published every year predicting something.  Any economic thing that could possibly happen is predicted by someone, and some of them will thus have to be right.   D r e a m Focus  22:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - I was going to make this a reply to the above, but it is clear enough that a !vote makes sense. WP:NLIST is part of WP:N which is very clear that We require the existence of "reliable sources" so that we can be confident that we're not [...] posting indiscriminate collections of information. (shortcut WP:WHYN). The formulation of this page is the very definition of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Page history is instructive, with none of the original predictions remaining in the article, and significant churn. There is no significant collection on which such a list can be based or sustained. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is a random collection on information. List articles can be useful as a navigation aid, as providing links to similar-subject articles, but not in this case.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Too random listcruft. NavjotSR (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.