Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010


 * 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. It's a fringe theory, but it's a notable and well-sourced fringe theory. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010

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

Fringe theory of one man. Merge the information back to Igor Panarin. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a notable fringe theory as confirmed by in-depth coverage in a great many independent reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of 80 refs 43 are not in English, so I have no idea how reliable they are. Of the rest the bulk include only passing references, of the rest most are interviews that simply state over and over the exact same thing. In-depth it is not. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Try searching for (US collapse Russian) and you get lots of reliable sources like the WSJ, NYT, MSNBC, Foxnews (well, semi-reliable). For an example of how in-depth the coverage is, see this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html


 * I also see Pravda is recently crowing about the demise of American capitalism. Funny both sides lost the Cold War huh. Drawn Some (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that Pravda is no longer owned by the Russian government or the Communist Party. It has become the Russian version of the National Enquirer. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep We are not voting on the accuracy of the prediction but on its WP notability. It seems to be notable enough to merit its own article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per WP:Fringe. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge back to Panarin article, and clean up all the crud "references" to fringey online "publications" and worse (I just deleted a reference link to collegetermpapers.com!) -- Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  17:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or Redirect to the Panarin article. There is no need for an extra article that for most parts is just a timeline of Panarins appearances on TV or in the press. Stepopen (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article was split from the article about Panarin because the latter became too big. If it's not notable enough to be a separate article then maybe the article about Panarin is not notable either? Anyway, I will obey to the opinion of the majority. If most of you think that it's better to merge it back, it will be done. Thanks for your feedback! --Лъчезар (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that there's enough here to split off from the article about Igor Panarin, who is notable for other things besides this bizarre theory. This easily meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.  Ridiculous?  Yes, but they said the same thing about The Jupiter Effect (they were right).  Mandsford (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep on a first glance at the title, it looks fringey. But looking at the article itself... there is a case for notability as a fringe theory, especially given the recession giving it credence/popularity. Hmm... Sceptre (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge the relevant information back. The large amounts of information are unnecessary; a few paragraphs on Panarin's page would be more than enough.Tyrenon (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Much too notable.  -  down  load  ׀  sign!  22:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have not heard of this one, but it is a possibly notable fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A dedicated article on such a fringe view violates both WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There are a few important reliable sources, including Sky News, Washington Post, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal and Forbes, which should keep the article alive, but I'm wary of several sources which seem to come from private websites, and I find the lack of academic interest in the theory to be a vote of no-confidence in the theory's viability. --Pc13 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I already said, we are not considering the theory's viability, but its notability WP-wise. Also the policies on fringe theories seem to be a little misapplied here if used to criticize this article. This article is about a fringe theory so of course the fringe theory discussed is given weight. In an article on the history of the United States even mentioning this theory would be to give in undue weight. The same as if Bigfoot was discussed at length in North American mammals. But it would be wrong for Bigfoot's own article to say, "Bigfoot is a fictional North American mammal. Here is a list of real ones."  For example. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable enough to merit its own article. --Morfal (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This nomination is ridiculous. This article cites dozens of reliable sources. It's even up for a GAN! I urge the nominator to withdraw this nomination and take another look at WP:N. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 21:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So if the nominator has to take a look at WP:N, it would be only fair if you take a look at the rationale of the nominator. The question is not whether the theory is notable enough to be included, but whether it deserves a stand-alone article vs being discussed in the Igor Panarin article. Stepopen (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is obvious (at least to me) that there is enough coverage of this prediction for the subject to warrant its own article. Also, notability is whether or not a topic merits its own article. Something doesn't need to pass WP:N to be discussed as part of a different article. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion! In fact, the article was already nominated for a good article 12 days before it got nominated for deletion! (How many articles have you seen that are nominated for a good article and for deletion at the same time? :) --Лъчезар (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That you spun it off from the main article and nominated it for GA on the same day does not make it notable. Notability is not judged on the assessment level of an article, and it hasn't passed GA, it is just a GAN. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, albeit I nominated it not the same day but the following day. I was wondering whether the good article "rank" is hereditary. It turned out to be worse than not! =O --Лъчезар (talk)


 * Comment I have still not seen a valid reason to delete this article. WP:FRINGE applies only to theories that have not received much if any attention. This has, especially recently. This is evidenced by dedicated articles in the Associated Press, Bloomberg.com, and other notable sources, as well as several interviews. I still don't see how this subject is not worthy of an article. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 14:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that this theory should not appear here on Wikipedia. If you would at least read the discussion on this page this should be obvious to you. Stepopen (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're misinterpreting what I said. Obviously, there are people arguing for the article's deletion, like I said. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 16:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean the one anonymous IP? Because everyone else is saying that the information should be merged into the Igor Panarin article. Stepopen (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't merge even half that much content into the Panarin article; There's too much there. And a merge still results in the topic losing its own article. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 16:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want I can trim this article, so you can see the substantial information that will be merged back. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2009 (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.