Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potential superpowers


 * 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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Clear consensus asserts that the article is not "future history" as WP:CRYSTAL says, but verifiable, notable scholarly commentary backed up by many reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential superpowers

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

Article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not Daniel Chiswick (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. You are right about Wikipedia, it is "not a crystal ball," but the sad truth is, Wikipedia is filled with articles like this and are never thought of as against wikipedia's rules.  If the information is backed up with references, I find no problem with having articles like this.  And besides, WP:What Wikipedia is not clearly states: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."  All the information on this article are of high and wide interest for all.  And every scrap of information on here is referenced to proper and reliable contacts and references.  I do agree that some speculation on Wikipedia is not kosher, but I am on the defensive that some speculation makes Wikipedia a very interesting and fun website to read and use. &mdash;  Nuclear  Vacuum  01:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it doesn't matter if there are other pages like this one, they are against the rules and should be dealt with accordingly. Also wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a "Fun site". This articles clearly falls into the category of "Future History", and it has no place in an encyclopedia. Further more wikipedia policy states that "While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen." (See What Wikipedia is not section 3). On that note, I would like to point out that in the article's introduction there is a sentence that says "The record of such predictions has not been perfect. For example in the 1980s some commentators thought Japan would become a superpower, due to its large GDP and high economic growth at the time.", which clearly shows that such predictions are not reliable and are speculation and speculation is against the rules as they are not facts and encyclopedias present facts. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. #3 in WP:CRYSTAL states: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and future history are original research and therefore inappropriate. (empphasis added). This "future history" isn't original research. The article is clearly referenced with multiple (410 to be exact) reliable sources that cover this issue. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the extensive referencing demonstrates, a lot of people have speculated on the subject, which means it is notable by Wikipedia's definition of the word. As a (more or less) concise summary of those speculations, it's encyclopedic. No violation of WP:CRYSTAL is involved, since the article is about the speculations. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. When a president, pope, or leader is to be replaced; we usually include cited speculation of who is likely to be the replacement. When Kosovo was about to declare independence, we included cited speculation of the fact that it was likely to happen and when. If Wikipedia had been around before Y2K, we would have had cited speculation about what was going to happen. All of these articles have potential for being wrong in the short or long term yet expert opinions make them reliable enough for foresight no matter how wrong they may be in hindsight. Are we going to stop writing about where forming hurricanes might hit because it is likely to be wrong? 128.227.69.238 (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Brewcrewer's reading of WP:CRYSTAL. This isn't speculation as such, nor extrapolation, but a discussion of views from reliable sources about the topic. The speculation or extrapolation may be in the sources being discussed, but this is perfectly reasonable, and it is fair enough for the article to cover what those sources say. - Bilby (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep While we can't anticipate evolution of scientific and cultural norms, we can talk about notable anticipations of them. Maxamegalon2000 05:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. I fear that the nominator misunderstands CRYSTAL as "Things not in the past or present are not to be on Wikipedia."  This is not an article about some band's album that may or may not happen, or some movie that may or may not happen.  This is scholarly, notable prediction, and should be included as such.  Celarnor Talk to me  06:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.--Berig (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Superpower which will place this material in its proper context - as a projection of recent history. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per Celarnor Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; while we shouldn't contain original speculation, we can and do include the reported speculations of important people. I was hoping for an article on how to acquire super strength and speed, myself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. I did too, when I first saw the AfD. Possible a rename is in order, to avoid such confusions? Something like Potential world superpowers? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - The people who've been continually trying to delete this, first from the main article, now from its own article, have been rather hostile, rude and unconvincing in their arguments. It's well sourced, and although speculation, the prospect of "future superpowers" is well publicized. I do however think we need to keep strict control on the information we include, and make sure we avoid sourced original research such as "Brazil might be a superpower because this person says their economy is growing this fast" etc.. Krawndawg (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This satisfy "Not a crystal ball" policy because information is highly notable and verifiable. Do not merge with the currently existing Superpowers.Biophys (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Verifiable how? Waiting around in case the predictions turn out to be accurate?Zebulin (talk) 03:30, 4 May 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.