Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothetical disaster

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 11:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hypothetical disaster

WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) Choess 20:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This page describes a term; its purpose is not to chronicle predictions. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" guideline does not apply.

• Keep This article only describes the disasters listed, it does not predict them. Storm05 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with List of disasters. This subject is too broad and...well...hypothetical, to be of much use. There also isn't that much meat in this article. It's skin and bones. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I think the nominator misinterpreted the article. It simply presents various disaster scenarios that have received considerable scientific attention rather than predict when they will happen. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup; BJAODN the bit about "Sudden loss of gravity." Daniel Case 05:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and really, really cleanup. Its full of guesses and suppositions which could be replaced by actual information eg regarding 9+ on richter scale it stated "Many sciencetists doubt that this kind of earthquake will happen". Well, there was that 9.5 in Chile (sorry - forgot the timestamp) Psud 05:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
• Keep: I can't speak to anything else that might justify its deletion, but it certainly doesn't fall under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Oh no! Could we really lose gravity! -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 09:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and add links to gravity-boot merchants; I'm worried now : / . Adrian Lamo ·· 09:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, ties well to existing articles of past and future disaster scenarios. Doing a bit of cleanup on it. Weregerbil 09:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as potentially verifiable and not infinite list. Batmanand 12:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It's looking good now thanks to some cleanup. Sad to see the gravity failure gone. Not that I'm planning on putting it back. Psud 12:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Dang, I ran into these: End of civilization and Human extinction. Some overlap here... Weregerbil 14:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with List of Disasters. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the above user means List of disasters. Batmanand | Talk 13:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but clean up. --Janke | Talk 08:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep — Yeah, serious clean-up still needed. Introduction states that "there is no known historical or geological evidence", then the article proceeds to cite evidence of such. The sentence be restricted to recorded historical evidence only. :) — RJH 16:08, 20 February 2006 (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.