Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth changes

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus and so the article will be kept. DES ^(talk) 20:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt to advance a theory that 2005 is a cataclysmic year. WP:NOT a soapbox. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been rewritten, it's no longer a soapbox but is now a perfectly respectable article on a fringe belief. Kudos to Spase on the rewrite, and my vote is changed to keep. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This article has been substantially rewritten since it was Afd'ed. Please take another look at it if you've voted on it. --Clay Collier 10:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it also has no content. GTBacchus 05:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's got content now, so I cross that part out. I now say merge and redirect to Climate change. It'll make a good section there; when it gets big enough to be its own article, it'll split off naturally. GTBacchus 08:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, per Man in Black. GTBacchus 08:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - how can we draw statistical relationships for a year that hasn't even ended? Evil Monkey∴Hello 06:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  It's hard to cancel out disasters that have already happened - you would need some kind of negative natural disaster. silsor 06:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no content and the analysis of statistical information is origianal research (even if the data collection is not). If this is just to be a list of this years events then there are better places to put it, if it is an attempt to advance a theory then we don't want it. Andreww 08:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The cannot be a mere list of events. It has to reflect people's ideas that Earth is changing and the contradictions - as I said, it´s a popular concept. But that needs writing, work, and the article is just a few days old. Subramanian ^talk
  • Strong keep now. Although the page has the same name the content is very different (the subject has changed) and it is now a rather good article. Andreww 22:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. __earth 08:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that what the article was suggesting?
    • very funny __earth 14:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Enochlau 08:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anyone who's studied much statistics knows that random events often appear to clump. Grutness...wha? 10:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteas per nom Qaz ^(talk) 10:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs work, but Keep.Still far from adequate, but the content of the article has changed. There is a misunderstanding here. Please note that it is NOT an attempt to support apocalyptic theories at all. It does not matter whether we believe it is happening or not. But a Google Search on "Earth Changes" yields 756,000 hits. Our Wikipedia article should not prove or originally research anything, but it´s a popular concept. you see, White Supremacy is a bogus, dreadful and unscientific theory, with an important entry because many people belive in it. By the way, "White Supremacy" returns 743,000 results, less than "Earth Changes". Please review your opinions. Subramanian ^talk 14:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Only 473 are unique, and that's mostly because the phrase "earth changes" is a very common occurence. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Only 794 are unique for White supremacy. Subramanian ^talk

  How many hits for "White supremacy" or "White power" or "Neo-Nazi" or "Nazi party" or "Ku Klu Klan" or all of the other synonyms and related topics? White supremacy has had a major effect on the history of the US, as well as the world if you extend "white supremacy" to include the racially-motivated actions of the Nazi party. This theory is miniscule in comparison. "Earth changes," by contrast, is a new theory, has nearly no published support, has no cultural impact whatsoever, and isn't peer-reviewed as a theory. (Even the goofy claims of one race's superiority over the others have been extensively investigated as scientific hypotheses.) Find a better comparison. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: even with the rewrite, there is nothing new under the sun. Disasters happen every year and segments of the population generally cite each as evidence that the world is ending. There's nothing to salvage from this. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete attempt to link events which the article says cannot logically be linked. CLW 15:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not verifiable -- there are no reliable scholarly sources advancing an "Earth Changes" theory for 2005. Xoloz 15:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , but be ready to Undelete when this idea gains a popular following which it almost certainly will. I just think were being too quick off the mark here. Lots of people I know are saying this but until it manifests as an identifiable movement we can't cover it. It doesn't need to have a scientific basis , Wikipedia has all sorts of articles on strange beliefs. Lumos3 17:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. Subramanian ^talk

• Delete as neologism, which, of course, may change. although, we do still have a wonderful article on scientology (which may be linked to the theory advanced... OPERATING THETANS!!!) Jesse 17:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. More troubling is that Subramanian is not disclosing that he is the article's author, and the feeling that somehow, I've seen this before...perhaps at best, this article should be subsumed as a subsection of End times or Eschatology. nae'blis _(talk) 22:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You are being unfair. How could I not disclose it? It´s there at the history log! No bad intentions at all. Subramanian ^talk

I know you have only the best of intentions, but technically the AfD guidelines suggest outright disclosure that one is the creator, if/when one votes, for future reference. That is from where Nae'blis' concern stems. Xoloz 15:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Xoloz, for saying that more clearly than I could. I figured there was a guideline but couldn't come up with the term. nae'blis _(talk) 19:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Original research by some psychic who is trying to advance his blatantly false theory. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Everybody knows the world already ended on October 13, 2002. ESkog | ^Talk 02:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hail Bob! - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOR. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. Alex.tan 06:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research, unverifiable. *drew 05:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but substantially refocus. As the article currently stands, it is too focused on events in the last year or so, but it has possibilities. The notion of 'Earth Changes' is actually fairly well known in the 'New Age' movement; I've stumbled across lots of documentary shows that discuss self-proclaimed psychics (Gordon Michael Scallion, for instance) who make claims about this sort of phenomenon. There's significant overlap with Judeo-Christian notions of the 'End Times', but there's also a semi-parallell tradition in the new age/psychic phenomena movement. It's enough of a pop culture and social phenomenon to warrant documenting, even if the current article is a little weak. I think chopping out the 'current phenomenon' and global warming section and turning it into a stub on the belief in Earth Changes would make this an ultimately viable and useful article. --Clay Collier 23:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I completely re-wrote the article according to my own recommendations for making it focused on the belief in Earth Changes, rather than the somewhat un-focused bit that was there before. I really think that most of the criticisms that were leveled at the earlier article no longer apply. Please take a look at the new article. --Clay Collier 10:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The rewrite is definitely better, but I'm still concerned about whether we're just replicating material found in other articles, and whether that will just make the entire subject harder to keep up-to-date. I'm usually fairly inclusionist, but... still leaning Delete. nae'blis _(talk) 13:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really seeing the maintenence issue. I haven't been able to find other articles that contain this particular information- could you link to where you think the overlap/problem is? There's quite a bit about belief in some sort of apocalypse, but nothing specific to this branch of the New Age tradition (except for a very short blurb on the Edgar Cayce page about his particular predictions). I think that this constitutes a distinct (if somewhat diffuse) idea- and the specific term itself seems to be in fairly wide use among these New Age groups. --Clay Collier 21:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now Keep - article has been improved even since my comment above and seems to be on good footing now. Edgar Cayce and related terms should link to this if/when it survives AfD. Cheers to all who worked on it. nae'blis _(talk) 19:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (though may need rewrite) -- This has been a standard term in the "New Age" or "proto-New-Age" community since the 1930s and should have a Wikipedia entry -- 10 October 2005
• Keep seems newagey. Klonimus 09:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a fine article, and perfectly encyclopedic. --Ashenai (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.