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. - Mailer Diablo 11:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed predictions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A number of objections, culled from the Talk page:

• Not encyclopaedic. More appropriate on Wikiquote.
• Poorly sourced or relying largely on a single webpage source that is itself unsourced.
• Whether something constitutes a "failed prediction" requires at least POV judgement or at worst original research
• Not actually a list of failed predictions, but rather, selective quotes taken out of context in order to create mild comedy.
• Quotes largely given without any context or commentary.

--Waggawag 10:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. --Evb-wiki 12:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reminds me of some of the stuff my mother-in-law used to forward, and that used to circulate via xeroxed sheets tacked to office bulletin boards. Non-encyclopedaic. Brianyoumans 12:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Koryu Obihiro 13:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I didn't hit the Pick 6 at Monmouth on Saturday. That is also a failed prediction. Smashville 13:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I think the key to this, despite being enormously indiscriminate is "out of context". It leads itself to having apocryphal info, too. Smashville 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with a thorough cleanup and references. Most of the examples should be deleted as too vague, but the doomsday predictions give specific dates or years and have presumably been publicized, so it shouldn't be impossible to find sources. Clarityfiend 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's instead move the "Doomsday" predictions into the Doomsday event article and delete them here. Unfortunately, doomsday predictions can be generated quite regularly in modern times, and continue to be generated, so only those that were historically high-impact (ie, had some relevance to human events beyond being simply noted in the historical record) ought to merit inclusion (in that article). --Waggawag

• Delete. Funny but merely a hodge-podge collection of quips, not a proper encyclopedic article. For such title I would expect scholar treatment of the topic, not something lifted from a Sunday newspaper. Pavel Vozenilek 22:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete I knew I'd seen this before. The "humorous" quotes are taken, word for word, from a cheap paperback book called 303 of the World's Worst Predictions by Wayne Coffey(1983, Tribeca Communications). The dates for the world's end are from The People's Almanac #2 (Wallace & Wallechinsky) Author failed to predict that someone might recognize plagiarism. Mandsford 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I predict Delete, though if it's kept again, add that one into the article. The fact it would qualify under the guidelines I see there show the problems with it. --UsaSatsui 15:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 07:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.