Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failed predictions

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed predictions

It is half a list of quotations, half original research. There's no standard for inclusion--sources are incredibly diverse, and everyone knows that predictions often fail, anyway. Unencyclopedic. Grace 07:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. GassyGuy 08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This list may be interesting, but the same can be said of many other things (e.g., personal essays) which also do not belong here. Also, consider the vast amount this covers. I have old fantasy football magazines that predict various things about NFL players. Should I add quotes about the expected fantasy worth of Philip Rivers? Should I find people who have failed to predict the proper results of various elections? Should I pull quotes from magazines or other sources that predicted Chris Daughtry would win American Idol in the fifth season? If this list has its place somewhere, let it grow happily, but I do not see it as the sort of article which belongs on Wikipedia. Perhaps if it were more specialized to some degree that it could reasonable be kept, I would vote differently, but as it stands, this is an indiscriminate collection of non-notable information with great potential to spiral into a great mess. GassyGuy 07:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic, WP:NOR, WP:V. --Terence Ong 08:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete William M. Connolley 08:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep though definitely should be purged. Could include predictions that followers of psychics and politicians deny they ever made - Skysmith 10:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as is and expand. I see a huge potential for growth for this article. Royalbroil 14:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Or: Is there a possibility of this being transferred piecemeal to Wikiquotes? Markeer 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Infinite, indiscriminate list with inherent POV problems. Vizjim 14:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• I hope and predict this will be Deleted. If not deleted, I demand that this prediction be added to it. -- GWO
• Delete per nom--Kalsermar 17:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete completely unmaintainable listcruft KleenupKrew 00:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting list that's gathered a lot of crust over the last three years. Topic seems valid, not sure why you'd want to dump the entire thing instead of trying to clean it up. First step would be to start a talk page discussion on narrowing the scope; not deleteing the entire thing. Kuru ^talk 01:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia isn't a place for lists of quotes in the first place - that's for Wikiquote. Secondly, why list failed predictions? Predictions often fail, often succeed - what is notable about that? Failed predictions as a category aren't notable in themselves, though they may be good in the relevant articles. (Would we want a list of successful predictions, where somebody once said something like "Everyone will drive cars to work in the future"?) --Grace 02:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Why delete it? If it doesn't seem "professional" enough, why doesn't it just get cleaned up a bit. It's an extremely enjoyable read, and a more complete list of failed predictions is nowhere to be found anywhere on the web. It is the perfect supplement to the 'predictions' Wikipage, and it would be downright discriminatory to deny people the right to explore the various predictions made over the years that have amounted to nothing! I say clean it up, but don't delete it.Ackatsis 10:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Please sign your comments by typing four tildes, ~~~~, at the end. That something is "an extremely enjoyable read" (which I agree it is, in parts) doesn't qualify it for inclusion on Wikipedia. That said, the whole content of the article is free under the GFDL, so if your reason for keeping is just that you like it, why not copy it to your own website? Or create the page on Wikiquote. --Grace 08:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If you still want to delete it, why not integrate many of these quotes into their respective articles? And we just have to keep those failed Doomsday predictions- as far as I'm concerned, they're a part of human history, and, therefore, are worthy of inclusion in any encyclopaedia. They could easily be linked to the 'Prophecy' Wikipage. Ackatsis 12:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • • (Please don't alter another user's comments, or add another "Keep" that might make it look like you're trying to vote twice. I've moved up your reply to make it clear that it's part of the same discussion.) Anyway, en.wikiquote.org is another Wikimedia project that exists as a repository for quotes. --Grace 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment The majority of Ackatsis's few contributions to Wikipedia are edits to this AfD. GassyGuy 08:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I'm sorry, GassyGuy- what's your point? I haven't exactly been a registered Wikipedian (is that the right noun?) for that many days. This article is basically the one that I feel the most strongly about keeping at this present time. Is there a minimum contribution quota that you feel I should know about?Ackatsis 09:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I only pointed it out because I've seen this sort of thing pointed out on many other AfD discussions. I mean nothing personal. GassyGuy 09:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Huge potential for growth. SushiGeek 10:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: An anonymous user vandalized this discussion here, adding a vote for Keep but also changing another user's vote from Delete to Keep. I reverted the entire edit, since I don't think the vandal's vote should be counted. --Grace 12:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The above vote re-adds a comment added during the vandalism mentioned above, see this edit. I feel it should not be counted as legitimate. --Grace 00:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but should probably be moved to List of failed predictions as it is essentially a list, not an article about failed predictions themselves. Falcon 01:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I actually like the idea proposed by 'Falcon' (above). Keep the article, but perhaps change the title to List of failed predictions. 203.49.243.1 09:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just how many "votes" do you suppose you get? GassyGuy 08:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would also note that this user's only three Wikipedia edits have all been to this AfD. GassyGuy 08:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm really sorry, but I just want to get a genuine vote in. I changed a comment earlier, and it was a stupid, childish thing to do (and I really do apologise), but now I've been told that my previous vote is void. So I'm just trying to get one proper vote in here. If you want, I'll delete my previous comments and just leave the most recent one, but I'm not sure if that's counted as vandalism. Can I do that, or does somebody else do it? Thankyou. 203.49.243.1 09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment My only complaint was that you started more than one statement with the word "Keep." That makes it look as if you're trying to vote more than once. I have no problem with you posting your views on here, but start the rest with the word "Comment" as you have done with the most recent one. GassyGuy 09:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, thanks. I'll do that. Does this mean that I can just completely delete my previous votes and just keep the most recent one?203.49.243.1 09:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You don't even have to do that, just replace one of the "Keep"s with a "Comment" or whatever to make it clear that it isn't a vote. GassyGuy 09:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft. Tychocat 05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, probably rename to List of failed predictions. This is important stuff, and as long as the failed predictions we record can be traced back to verifiable sources, this article could be good encyclopedic scholarship. Anville 15:51, 9 June 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.