Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Filter (2nd nomination)


 * 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. One (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Great Filter
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This page was the subject of a VfD debate on April 16, 2005. The decision was to merge and redirect to/with Fermi Paradox. See Votes for deletion/The Great Filter for discussion. Mackensen (talk) 05:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) I would suggest a merge to Rare Earth hypothesis J8079s (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate. This article should be converted to a disambiguation page between Rare Earth hypothesis and The Great Filter (album).— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article content is related to both Fermi Paradox & Rare Earth hypothesis, but not interchangeable with either term. Regular Google & Scholar searches reveals that the term is indeed used in RS and is notable in its own right. The scientific/philosophical term is clearly more notable than the album, so the page should stay as is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete: per WP:SPEEDY G4. Additionally, only citation in article that actually mentions the topic is to the topic's originator. Google scholar results tend to be either unrelated or arxiv. WP:Notability is therefore not established. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Great Filter is explicitly mentioned in the Nick Bostrom citation as well. --Michael C. Price talk 09:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Google scholar shows many references (try ' "Great Filter' Fermi' to get rid of some of the noise). Many are by M. M. Ćirković, and appear in real journals, with pre-prints in arXiv.  Also there is a book chapter by Ćirković in a book by Bostrom, Ćirković, and Rees.  LouScheffer (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Surely you are open to the possibility of a topic's importance changing within four year's time? The topic is clearly notable today - it doesn't matter if it wasn't four years ago.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge I can find no real differences (looking at the sources) in these theories. Also the history section of The Great Filter shows a lack of interest in expanding or improving the article. Rare Earth on the other hand has a number of active participants J8079s (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How might the article be improved? It already explains the concept clearly and concisely. --Michael C. Price talk 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perceived lack of interest in improving the article is not a valid criteria for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Rare Earth & Great Filter are different, although related, concepts. One has implications for the past of the Earth, the other about the future of civilisation. --Michael C. Price talk 06:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The ideas Rare Earth and Great Filter are distinct.  Notability is shown by (among other things) the album - clearly someone outside of the author thought the idea interesting.   LouScheffer (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The Great Filter is a web essay. The author is not an expert in this field. There are a great number of web essays about this theory that dont use the great filter as the name of the theory(also some published work, the name has not caught on). Even if The Great Filter and The Rare Earth Hypothesis are different in some substantial way ( I dont see it) they could still share one article that could be linked to Drake and Fermi and have citations from published sources.J8079s (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Since J8079s's fails to distinguish between the Rare Earth hypothesis and the Great Filter those articles J8079s says don't use the GF moniker are probably about the REH or something else. Also, note that that Hanson is a tenured professor, ex-NASA, so I see no basis for the claim that Hanson is not an expert in this field.  --Michael C. Price talk 05:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While a web essay is not normally a reliable source, it can certainly be notable. ArXiv is full of web essays, those articles which are published in arXiv and then not in any professional or refereed journals.  Many of them collect quite a few references from the formal, traditional, peer-reviewed academic publishing, so a web essay can clearly be notable, even in the strictest of academic interpretations of notable.   LouScheffer (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep.  I came to the "the great filter" page after hearing the term used by the professor in my astronomy class.  I'm glad that it had not been deleted! Eliptis (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. No reason given for fork. Bongo  matic  01:58, 28 April 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.