Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the future in forecasts (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   delete. The "keep" opinions don't address the policy-based deletion rationales and boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, which as has been noted is a weak argument in deletion discussions.  Sandstein  12:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of the future in forecasts
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A festival of WP:SYNTH, WP:ESSAY, and WP:CRYSTAL, nothing has improved since the last visit to AFD. And five years later, a number of the predictions have been overtaken by time, leaving 2004 as the baseline for the future. Surely there is a market out there for a book (or probably another book) about futurological predictions, but the mere fact that we can cite such predictions is not a good enough reason for us to write an article about them, still less being able to make something coherent of it. It's not a timeline, and it's not at all clear why some predictions should be taken seriously and others omitted; inclusion seems indiscriminate; it cries out for a thesis making sense of all this data, and that's something we don't do. This is Popular Science's territory, not ours. Mangoe (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with the nomination.  This is a speculative article that makes wild guesses at the future.   WP:CRYSTAL does give some leeway in these cases to scientific predictions, but this seems sourced to government and corporate spokespeople, futurologists, and science fiction writers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I like the article - it certainly can be improved but it's a helpful list. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT? Gm545 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. It took a wiki walk to find this page, and I don't want it going anywhere. While it could be reformatted into a singular timeline, the information present is a good start, and I think that more could be added by citing various corporate and governmental websites regarding their "plans" for the future. 71.215.184.162 (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * TV Tropes is not a reliable source, not that I see what the point of this is anyway. Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. Gm545 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a useful page that aggregates others' predictions of the future, placing them in context with one another. The page makes no claims to the veracity of any particular claim or source, but instead reports who said what about the future. What various sources say about the future, regardless of whether the predictions are "true" is still quite useful data. cross_impact (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Boils down to WP:ITSUSEFUL. Gm545 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as WP:ILIKEIT too. Gm545 (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. JK! Easily fails WP:CRYSTAL#3. 'an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not [appropriate]' Gm545 (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Additionally, let me just say I find it unimaginable that the first passed keep. By definition, events in the future are unverifiable. Just because there's a web link doesn't mean that they're going to happen, otherwise we're having Jurassic Park on our hands in a few years according to Mr. Clarke. People, please read WP:CRYSTAL#1, "expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Plus, please note sockpuppets in the prior discussion. Gm545 (talk) 16:46, 2 January 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.