Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis of 2020

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 on the article, remove entry from template. Kusma (討論) 01:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis of 2020

This article presents no information other than two writers have decided that there will be a Crisis of 2020 Generation. Useless non-notable speculation that has somehow made its way onto (and muddies up) the Generational table/template (e.g. see Lost Generation). Madman 20:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, Crystal ball etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ballism. Henning Makholm 21:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. BryanG 21:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Generations (book) or keep, I guess I should've looked closer at it than I did. My mistake. However, as I noted below, this should be removed from Template:Generations as potentially confusing to readers. BryanG 21:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this stub exists in the context of the article series covering Strauss and Howe's survey of historical generations, and is an extrapolation of the historical patterns they observe. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball doesn't seem to apply, as the article discusses a verifiable scholarly work, rather than being original research. The stub can be expanded by covering their arguments for this prediction.--Nectar 00:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball says "Expected future events should only be included if the event is . . . almost certain to take place." and the "2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics.".Madman 13:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article merely reports a published scholarly theory (see WP:V), and that should be the end of this issue.--Nectar 14:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page is infomation about a theory. An odd one but a theory nonetheless. See Flat Earth. Kansaikiwi 13:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- OK, I'll buy that, but since it's a theory, it should be removed from Template:Generations at least. It's potentially confusing for readers to put a theoretical generation in the same template as generations that definitely occurred. BryanG 21:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, no indications as to the notability of this theory. Remove from template, at any rate. Sandstein 10:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I maintain my keep vote but take out the template. Maybe the guys who made the theory need their own template. Kansaikiwi 15:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at the very least remove from Generational table/template. How can you write an article about generational history and include someone's predictions for the future. Has this guy got a time machine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel bagshaw (talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from table only theories are good. I enjoyed reading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Zafar (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 April 2006
Me again, the nominator. If someone provides some content (other than the authors predict a Crisis in 2020, like what kind, etc etc), then I can see a Keep on the article, but I very much believe we need to Delete from the template/table. Thanks 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good.--Nectar 07:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Generations (book). Because all the articles in the American Generations series express the opinion of Strauss and Howe. It is an interesting opinion though, but it this way it is somewhat misleading, beacause one might not understand in the begining that these are theories of only two people. --212.72.201.199

Delete or merge into Generations (book). Should not be its own article. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article, delete from template seems to be the consensus. Alba 14:01, 20 April 2006 (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.

Kusma (討論) 01:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]