Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of the Future


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

State of the Future

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. Part of a walled garden, including The Millennium Project (also at AFD) and Jerome C. Glenn (deleted after AFD). Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Needs independent verification of notability. -- Green  C  04:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔   04:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (orate)  @ 20:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree previous version of article lacked references, but sources suggest that the report is indeed notable, used by many organizations, authoritative and influential, quoted by news sources, affiliated with the United Nations, multiple independent references meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at the AfD for the Millenium Project, this one is not UN related. Apart from that, I'd appreciate if you could specify which sources suggest notability. Thanks. (PS: in any case thanks for your interest and !voting, this has already been relisted three times, so whatever the final verdict will be, it's high time this one gets closed... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, and trimmed more cruft from the article. I guess, based on your comments and after reviewing things, what might be best is if both State of the Future content and the The Millennium Project content were combined into one short article, with the good references from the SotF article; would that work for people? My thinking is that the report itself has oomph, is authoritative and has an impact, while the organization, as such, doesn't get sufficient attention, so maybe they should both be combined under the title SotF.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The only references are the non-notable organization or confused with the UN Millennium Group that makes a similar paper coverage. Frmorrison (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2014 (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.