Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Technology

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-29 06:49Z

[edit] Future Technology

Future Technology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:OR violation. ju66l3r 15:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Delete The article as-written is unsalveageable, but I think the topic of "Future Technology" is actually a justifiable encyclopedic category. While one might accuse such an article of being a magnet for crystal-balling--I have some print encyclopedias that have a similar subject. I'd say delete if this article can't be improved quickly. Tarinth 15:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete: This is both original research and crystal balling. If someone can make an article with "documented" possibilities, that might be different, but this is bald speculation. Heimstern Läufer 18:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:NOR and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only way an article like this can work if all the information is properly sourced. Jayden54 18:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - And suggest the editor to go to wikibooks. Tonytypoon 19:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This recreation was caught by our copyvio bot, which states is a copyvio from this page (although I can't load it right now). As soon as someone confirms this is indeed a copyvio, I can speedy delete it. -- ReyBrujo 19:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That page is search engine spam which appears to include some old Wikipedia content. If there's any copyright violation going on, it's on their part. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks for the tip. No speedy delete then, at least not for that reason. -- ReyBrujo 21:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unreferenced original research. --ShadowHalo 23:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Eli Falk 12:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This is unsalvagable original research. Dr. Submillimeter 13:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original Research and Crystalballing. However, as a previous editor mentioned, I could see a legitimate article on this topic; there are plenty of legitimate articles on the topic. However, the article can be recreated after deletion if someone wants to make a proper article. --The Way 20:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; NOR. Yuser31415 04:59, 26 December 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.