Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2639

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2639

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Bobby1011 05:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • No actual content. Delete.Bjones 05:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as reasonably covered under CSD/A1, and tagged as such. Adrian Lamo ·· 05:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Adrian --lightdarkness (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article redirected to 27th century by User:CrypticBacon. Implausible redirect, but sure, why not. Adrian Lamo ·· 05:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per Adrian. --Terence Ong 05:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete — It is actually nonsense (if the history is any indication), but the year itself shouldn't redirect to the century... What happens when 2639 rolls around? ;) Kareeser|Talk! 05:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It'd be nice of User:CrypticBacon dropped by and explained his reasoning :) . Adrian Lamo ·· 05:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. We do not have enough content for 2639 to be a stand-alone article. If it redirects to 27th century, the reader/editor will understand this and subsequent edits to significant predicted events in that year will be placed in 27th century, until 2639 grows near enough and/or gains enough information to warrant its own article. I'm a little uncertain why this redirect is considered "implausible". Comments/thoughts? CrypticBacon 07:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. It's implausible because there's not a significant demand for information on the year 2369 at this time, and it's unlikely that anyone will get to the target article through the redirect. That said, obviously your edit was in good faith, and I'm not adverse to having it stand, but consensus is running towards deletion, and speedy deletion at that. This is why I hoped you might come by and offer reasons why a redirect would be better than deletion :) Adrian Lamo ·· 07:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
First off, thank you for realizing the redirect was in good faith. Hypothetical: If the creator of 2639 were to have simply created a redirect, instead of posting a bunch of gibberish, what do you think would have happened? Would it have gone up for AfD or simply been left alone? I venture that if I were to go and created "8675" as a redirect to 87th century, no one would really have a problem with it. Sure, the chance of that redirect being useful is slim, but nonetheless it is a sensible redirect. It's not as if the redirect is misleading or unthruthful. CrypticBacon 08:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
All of the above is true. I did say that I wasn't adverse to letting it stand. I still think it's unlikely to get much use, but if it does, then so much the better. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

:Keep Mostly it indicates astronomical events to happen then. Maybe the Moon will be destroyed by aliens or a rogue black hole will disrupt the course of planets, but generally you can estimate the time of conjunctions or eclipses centuries in advance.--T. Anthony 07:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Nevermind I was reading the redirect to the 27th c.--T. Anthony 07:56, 19 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.