Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline 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. Discussion below indicates that the article violates WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. -- jonny - m t  14:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the future

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

This is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information. It isn't that it is crystal balling, because we can document predictions, it is that placing a number of calender events, with sporting plans, and environmental predictions constitutes an original synthesis. None of this is sourced, but even if sourced, why should we use one scientists prediction of the effects of global warming over another's (that's POV). Basically this is going nowhere encyclopedic. Docg 21:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nominator. As it stands this page is ridiculous: an amalgam of near-term sporting events, far-distant cosmic and geological forecasts, and entirely speculative predictions of natural disasters and economic trends. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete A real fringe theory WP:FRINGE, would have to be proved, and covered to be notable. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Unfortunately. Lawrence  §  t / e  17:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a useful article, and it could be more useful if people would contribute to it instead of trying to delete it. I've heard of original sin, but I didn't know that there was a sin of original synthesis! What does "Doc glasgow" mean by "None of this is sourced?" All the things in the table are links, and those links provide the source material! It sounds to me like my article is becoming the victim of sceptics about global warming. As to what Christopher Parham says, the reason that it is an amalgam of near-term, fairly trivial things, and far-term events is that it is a logarithmic scale which gives more weight to the near future. This is entirely natural, since the density of events we can predict (events per unit time) decreases with distance into the future (see logarithmic timeline). As for the far-term predictions being speculative, they are not! I'm willing to debate you on any one of them. And what theory is AlbinoFerret referring to when he says "A real fringe theory"? Which prediction? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:29, 29 March 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.