Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predictions of the end of Facebook


 * 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 merge to Facebook. or Criticism of Facebook, whatever works. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Predictions of the end of Facebook

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No in-depth, substantial coverage as an independent concept; this is mostly a grab-bag of articles that make similar predictions. This could perhaps be covered in 1-2 sentences in the main articles, Facebook and Facebook Inc.. Neutralitytalk 23:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to Facebook. The article as it stands is WP:OR - the sources do not discuss the subject of "predictions of the end of Facebook", they simply are predictions of the end of Facebook. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Facebook. Rumors are not encyclopedia worthy. Lightburst (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I made this article. It passes WP:GNG, which is the criteria Wikipedia uses to decide if a topic merits inclusion. Opposition to this point has said nothing about WP:GNG, which should be the center of AfD discussions. A merge would not work because the main article Facebook is already WP:TOOLONG, so if we put this content there then that triggers the need to split this off into its own article. This deletion discussion is a proposal for Removal of Wikipedia articles on notable topics.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Which sources demonstrate in-depth, substantial coverage as an independent concept? Neutralitytalk 23:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are the references in the current article version.
 * special:permalink/946407733
 * I feel that they all qualify as WP:Reliable sources for establishing WP:GNG. Since you ask for me to present a source for discussion let's try
 * In what ways do you disagree that this source and content fails to contribute toward establishing notability for this topic?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the John Birch Society's newsletter is not a reliable source. And in any case, this is just an example of a prediction of the end of Facebook &mdash; it's not an in-depth coverage of "predictions of the end of Facebook" as an independent topic. Neutralitytalk 18:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am in error about the title. These subject of these cited sources is actually the "End of Facebook". You and SpicyMilkBoy are correct that these articles do not discuss "predictions of Facebooks end". One possible fix could be renaming the article to "Facebook's end", which is actually the subject of each of these articles. To what extent does that resolve the concern? Are you willing to say whether these cited sources share the same subject matter?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am in error about the title. These subject of these cited sources is actually the "End of Facebook". You and SpicyMilkBoy are correct that these articles do not discuss "predictions of Facebooks end". One possible fix could be renaming the article to "Facebook's end", which is actually the subject of each of these articles. To what extent does that resolve the concern? Are you willing to say whether these cited sources share the same subject matter?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with Facebook. A lot of this honestly feels like an essay or piece of original research; it doesn't warrant a standalone article. The fact that one of the sources is John Birh Society is pretty bad as well, but even without that source this is at best a facet of Facebook rather than a standalone topic. Classic WP:FORK problem. Michepman (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The John Birch magazine is a 40-year old monthly publication with a conservative bias. It seems reliable to me for presenting the conservative perspective. Can you say why you find it inappropriate here? Other sources include Forbes, biased to promote capitalist business interest, Vanity Fair and Mashable, biased for pop and tech culture, and the Catholic Online, biased toward a religion. This seems to me like an article where established mainstream demographics of various backgrounds can use journalism to present their thoughts on topic. What reason is there to avoid showing the diversity in the perspectives of the cited sources?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is not the place to predict the future (see section 3 of the guideline). -KAP03 (Talk &#x2022;&#x20;Contributions &#x2022;&#x20;Email) 20:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems to be well-referenced to good sources.  I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, but I don't see any fundamental reason this can't exist as a stand-alone article.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:NOPAGE. This information is better off suited to a page like Criticism of Facebook. As of now, people are not going to find the information in this page clearly. Swordman97  talk to me  04:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge with Facebook per WP:NOPAGE. No need to keep a prediction page. Jai49 (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2020 (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.