Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Fifth Industrial Revolution

Elaboration needed
How is the Fourth Industrial Revolution failing? Please keep in mind that, on Wikipedia, claims like the one about the Fourth Industrial Revolution failing should be supported by reputable sources. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * After a few weeks, I've decided to open up a request for comment to ask other editors if the "failing" claim has any merit. Here's a list of edits for context:
 * April 14: First edits by an IP editor identifying as Michael Rada The IP editor's edits are reverted
 * May 13: The same IP claims that the the Fourth Industrial Revolution is "failing"
 * Would it be verifiably correct for this article's lede to describe the Fourth Industrial Revolution as failing? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I hate to be one of those guys who just shows up on a talk page to say the article is stupid, but this article should probably be a redirect, if even that. jp×g 07:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Uhm, No: To answer "Is the fourth failing?" I have to accept a fourth began. Stepping back, Digital_Revolution says the "Third Industrial Revolution" (c. 1959 – Ongoing) is ongoing. Why I looked: Fourth_Industrial_Revolution says "The Third Industrial Revolution, also known as the Digital Revolution, occurred in the late 20th century, after the end of the two world wars, resulting from a slowdown of industrialisation and technological advancement compared to previous periods...." This strikes me as total BS, and is cited to a single source, that looks sketchy at a glance, but I haven't dug into it. Also, some Asian countries that have been major exporters are not even mentioned in Fourth_Industrial_Revolution, which leads me to question the whole premise of drawing a line in time and calling it 4th or 5th "revolution". Why not just cover history in 50 year increments or whatever. This seems to be pushing someone's agenda. First edit summary, "Stub created using references and ChatGPT". Really? -- Yae4 (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are more basic problems here. The sourcing in this article is terrible.  What source are we using to state this part? Coelho et al. says that the scientific community embraced the term “Industry 4.0” (I4.0) to describe the fourth industrial revolution. With an annual average growth of published works (indexed in Scopus) of about 90%, we can consider that this revolution is still in progress holding a lot of potential to provide economic and social benefit.  Since that's one of the few good sources we have and it directly contradicts the idea that it's failing, I'll remove that bit, though honestly massive rewrites are needed here - this article seems more promotional than anything else. --Aquillion (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not clear to me from an editorial perspective that this topic should have its own article. Should we redirect and merge to Fourth Industrial Revolution instead, which is already an article that could use some work? Suriname0 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support redirect - I agree with Aquillion: and Suriname0:, but I would say more than just SOME work; that whole concept seems to be sourced to lots of poor sources using the term as a shiny new fancy promotional term that has not been accepted by mainstream historians, and so many of those sources are poor/corporate-propaganda/promotional. But fixing that would take a LOT of work.
 * --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Both 5th and 4th should go to the promoter's article, Klaus_Schwab. Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable discussing a Fourth anything being promoted by a prominent German (with all due respect)? -- Yae4 (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Both of these concepts are grasping neologisms pushed by spammy pundits trying to jump-start the next hype train. Merge them into patient zero. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)