Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Great Depression
- 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ball predictions of a future economic collapse, two references: one clear speculation, one a tabloid prediction supposedly based on the Dead Sea Scrolls. I don't know whether WP:NOT or WP:NOR applies more strongly, take your pick, this article is both. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I choose WP:NOR. -- Steel 18:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I choose both. Plus you could probably toss in that it's nonsense. Agent 86 19:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm the author of the In the news and In the tabloids section, though admittedly I haven't had time to look over the whole article and for all I know it could contain original research and crystal ballism. Note the In the news section has a link to CBC and thus hardly qualifies as original research; the In the tabloid section does link to a tabloid, but a notable tabloid and the section does not report the information as fact. (It would be hard to, since according to the tabloid we'd already be in the middle of the Depression right now). At any rate, many articles have an "In pop culture" section. I worked on, but did not start, the article because I think it deals with a notable concept, like several others in the fictional disaster and fictional wars category. Note Google hits, minus Wikipedia [1] CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I especially like the blog entry on the first page of returns: "Years ago, the Weekly World News scooped the world with Bat Boy Found In A Cave. This week,... " Note that Bat Boy is fictional, and this is the only "source" for one of the two sourced bits? In fact, all of Weekly World News is made up nonsense. Wonderful source. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, though, that Bat Boy has an article. Your point that Weekly World News in nonsense does not contradict, and thus does not refute, any of my points. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ???! Bat Boy is a recurring theme, and his first appearance on the cover broke sales records. WWN makes up reams of junk every week, and most of it is distincly not notable, having spawned no famous jokes, comics, running gags, etc. Have you read the Bat Boy article? What points do you think you have that this does not refute? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Adding: there is a Broadway musical based on Bat Boy, for crying out loud! Bat Boy: The Musical. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, though, that Bat Boy has an article. Your point that Weekly World News in nonsense does not contradict, and thus does not refute, any of my points. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I especially like the blog entry on the first page of returns: "Years ago, the Weekly World News scooped the world with Bat Boy Found In A Cave. This week,... " Note that Bat Boy is fictional, and this is the only "source" for one of the two sourced bits? In fact, all of Weekly World News is made up nonsense. Wonderful source. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yup, both. •Jim62sch• 20:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm going through second great depression just reading it.— Dunc|☺ 20:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, fails WP:NOR and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also nonsense (but not patent nonsense). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOR,WP:VER, in the future if we have one, some more highly visible published references. Ste4k
- Delete. --TJive 05:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant delete. While it's not complete nonsense and possibly salvagable if rewritten from scratch, the current version of the article fails a variety of criteria, sorry. —Nightstallion (?) 16:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete I think NOR applies more strongly Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- update :Add referces, the article is about the hypothetical future great depression.In that sence is not crystal balling,is about the crystall balling of economist.The imf ,banks and what ever are seriously woried about ,the economy ,in that degree ,so is not OR.If you thinks it's noncence ,it's not enoughf do deleat it in that basis.A great depression, is possible only when everybody thinks that it's imposible, all the previous where suprises.If you googleise dollar colapse ,or something relevant ,your overwellmed by this.IMF and bank of asia are not anybody.And yes,the article needs work, not deleassion.--87.65.194.230 20:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, all good here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Crystall balling ,in that section it sayes"speculation about it must be well documented", it seems to be the case here.The IMF OR is not OR.BBC,IMF,World bank, bank of asia, are not RS???--87.64.6.217 08:35, 8 July 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.