293:, Why delete it? If it doesn't seem "professional" enough, why doesn't it just get cleaned up a bit. It's an extremely enjoyable read, and a more complete list of failed predictions is nowhere to be found anywhere on the web. It is the perfect supplement to the 'predictions' Wikipage, and it would be downright discriminatory to deny people the right to explore the various predictions made over the years that have amounted to nothing! I say clean it up, but don't delete it.
328:(Please don't alter another user's comments, or add another "Keep" that might make it look like you're trying to vote twice. I've moved up your reply to make it clear that it's part of the same discussion.) Anyway, en.wikiquote.org is another Wikimedia project that exists as a repository for quotes. --
484:
I'm really sorry, but I just want to get a genuine vote in. I changed a comment earlier, and it was a stupid, childish thing to do (and I really do apologise), but now I've been told that my previous vote is void. So I'm just trying to get one proper vote in here. If you want, I'll delete my previous
316:
If you still want to delete it, why not integrate many of these quotes into their respective articles? And we just have to keep those failed
Doomsday predictions- as far as I'm concerned, they're a part of human history, and, therefore, are worthy of inclusion in any encyclopaedia. They could easily
352:
I'm sorry, GassyGuy- what's your point? I haven't exactly been a registered
Wikipedian (is that the right noun?) for that many days. This article is basically the one that I feel the most strongly about keeping at this present time. Is there a minimum contribution quota that you feel I should know
109:
This list may be interesting, but the same can be said of many other things (e.g., personal essays) which also do not belong here. Also, consider the vast amount this covers. I have old fantasy football magazines that predict various things about NFL players. Should I add quotes about the expected
278:
Well, Knowledge isn't a place for lists of quotes in the first place - that's for
Wikiquote. Secondly, why list failed predictions? Predictions often fail, often succeed - what is notable about that? Failed predictions as a category aren't notable in themselves, though they may be good in the
122:
in the fifth season? If this list has its place somewhere, let it grow happily, but I do not see it as the sort of article which belongs on
Knowledge. Perhaps if it were more specialized to some degree that it could reasonable be kept, I would vote differently, but as it stands, this is an
497:
My only complaint was that you started more than one statement with the word "Keep." That makes it look as if you're trying to vote more than once. I have no problem with you posting your views on here, but start the rest with the word "Comment" as you have done with the most recent one.
261:, interesting list that's gathered a lot of crust over the last three years. Topic seems valid, not sure why you'd want to dump the entire thing instead of trying to clean it up. First step would be to start a talk page discussion on narrowing the scope; not deleteing the entire thing.
302:
Please sign your comments by typing four tildes, ~~~~, at the end. That something is "an extremely enjoyable read" (which I agree it is, in parts) doesn't qualify it for inclusion on
Knowledge. That said, the whole content of the article is free under the
84:
It is half a list of quotations, half original research. There's no standard for inclusion--sources are incredibly diverse, and everyone knows that predictions often fail, anyway. Unencyclopedic.
560:. This is important stuff, and as long as the failed predictions we record can be traced back to verifiable sources, this article could be good encyclopedic scholarship.
399:, adding a vote for Keep but also changing another user's vote from Delete to Keep. I reverted the entire edit, since I don't think the vandal's vote should be counted. --
279:
relevant articles. (Would we want a list of successful predictions, where somebody once said something like "Everyone will drive cars to work in the future"?) --
114:? Should I find people who have failed to predict the proper results of various elections? Should I pull quotes from magazines or other sources that predicted
485:
comments and just leave the most recent one, but I'm not sure if that's counted as vandalism. Can I do that, or does somebody else do it? Thankyou.
62:
524:
You don't even have to do that, just replace one of the "Keep"s with a "Comment" or whatever to make it clear that it isn't a vote.
307:, so if your reason for keeping is just that you like it, why not copy it to your own website? Or create the page on Wikiquote. --
67:
512:
OK, thanks. I'll do that. Does this mean that I can just completely delete my previous votes and just keep the most recent one?
365:
I only pointed it out because I've seen this sort of thing pointed out on many other AfD discussions. I mean nothing personal.
179:
though definitely should be purged. Could include predictions that followers of psychics and politicians deny they ever made -
17:
415:
400:
329:
308:
280:
85:
582:
168:
36:
564:
557:
544:
528:
516:
502:
489:
476:
464:
452:
445:
436:
429:
418:
403:
387:
369:
357:
344:
332:
321:
311:
297:
283:
271:
253:
241:
219:
207:
195:
183:
171:
160:
127:
101:
88:
72:
581:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
57:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
444:
I actually like the idea proposed by 'Falcon' (above). Keep the article, but perhaps change the title to
157:
513:
486:
449:
123:
indiscriminate collection of non-notable information with great potential to spiral into a great mess.
154:
146:
433:
384:
149:
52:
49:
78:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
250:
229:
192:
472:
I would also note that this user's only three
Knowledge edits have all been to this AfD.
269:
238:
115:
541:
525:
499:
473:
461:
366:
354:
341:
318:
294:
180:
138:
124:
111:
98:
561:
204:
432:
as it is essentially a list, not an article about failed predictions themselves.
410:
The above vote re-adds a comment added during the vandalism mentioned above, see
340:
The majority of
Ackatsis's few contributions to Knowledge are edits to this AfD.
216:
142:
203:
Or: Is there a possibility of this being transferred piecemeal to
Wikiquotes?
262:
215:
per nominator. Infinite, indiscriminate list with inherent POV problems.
191:
as is and expand. I see a huge potential for growth for this article.
228:
d. If not deleted, I demand that this prediction be added to it. --
575:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
304:
411:
396:
414:. I feel it should not be counted as legitimate. --
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
585:). No further edits should be made to this page.
395:: An anonymous user vandalized this discussion
460:Just how many "votes" do you suppose you get?
8:
317:be linked to the 'Prophecy' Wikipage.
7:
249:completely unmaintainable listcruft
24:
428:but should probably be moved to
224:I hope and predict this will be
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
44:The result of the debate was
383:Huge potential for growth.
602:
558:List of failed predictions
446:List of failed predictions
430:List of failed predictions
73:23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
578:Please do not modify it.
565:15:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
545:05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
529:09:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
517:09:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
503:09:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
490:09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
477:08:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
465:08:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
453:09:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
437:01:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
419:00:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
404:12:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
388:10:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
370:09:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
358:09:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
345:08:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
333:12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
322:12:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
312:08:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
298:10:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
284:02:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
272:01:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
254:00:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
242:17:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
220:14:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
208:14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
196:14:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
184:10:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
172:08:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
161:08:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
128:07:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
102:08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
89:07:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
169:William M. Connolley
137:, unencyclopedic,
79:Failed predictions
110:fantasy worth of
593:
580:
267:
152:
70:
65:
60:
55:
34:
601:
600:
596:
595:
594:
592:
591:
590:
589:
583:deletion review
576:
263:
150:
82:
68:
63:
58:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
599:
597:
588:
587:
570:
568:
567:
547:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
507:
506:
505:
479:
467:
439:
422:
421:
407:
406:
390:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
360:
347:
335:
314:
287:
286:
275:
274:
256:
244:
232:
222:
210:
198:
186:
174:
163:
132:
131:
130:
116:Chris Daughtry
81:
76:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
598:
586:
584:
579:
573:
572:
571:
566:
563:
559:
555:
551:
548:
546:
543:
539:
536:
530:
527:
523:
520:
519:
518:
515:
511:
508:
504:
501:
496:
493:
492:
491:
488:
483:
480:
478:
475:
471:
468:
466:
463:
459:
456:
455:
454:
451:
447:
443:
440:
438:
435:
431:
427:
424:
423:
420:
417:
413:
409:
408:
405:
402:
398:
394:
391:
389:
386:
382:
379:
371:
368:
364:
361:
359:
356:
351:
348:
346:
343:
339:
336:
334:
331:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
320:
315:
313:
310:
306:
301:
300:
299:
296:
292:
289:
288:
285:
282:
277:
276:
273:
270:
268:
266:
260:
257:
255:
252:
248:
245:
243:
240:
236:
233:
231:
227:
223:
221:
218:
214:
211:
209:
206:
202:
199:
197:
194:
190:
187:
185:
182:
178:
175:
173:
170:
167:
164:
162:
159:
156:
153:
148:
144:
140:
136:
133:
129:
126:
121:
120:American Idol
117:
113:
112:Philip Rivers
108:
105:
104:
103:
100:
96:
93:
92:
91:
90:
87:
80:
77:
75:
74:
71:
66:
61:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
577:
574:
569:
553:
549:
537:
521:
514:203.49.243.1
509:
494:
487:203.49.243.1
481:
469:
457:
450:203.49.243.1
441:
425:
392:
380:
362:
349:
337:
290:
264:
258:
246:
234:
225:
212:
200:
188:
176:
165:
134:
119:
106:
94:
83:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
540:listcruft.
251:KleenupKrew
193:Royalbroil
118:would win
552:probably
412:this edit
385:SushiGeek
239:Kalsermar
237:per nom--
97:per nom.
542:Tychocat
526:GassyGuy
500:GassyGuy
474:GassyGuy
462:GassyGuy
367:GassyGuy
355:Ackatsis
342:GassyGuy
319:Ackatsis
295:Ackatsis
181:Skysmith
125:GassyGuy
99:GassyGuy
562:Anville
522:Comment
510:Comment
495:Comment
482:Comment
470:Comment
458:Comment
393:Comment
363:Comment
350:Comment
338:Comment
205:Markeer
107:Comment
50:King of
554:rename
538:Delete
434:Falcon
353:about?
247:Delete
235:Delete
226:Delete
217:Vizjim
213:Delete
166:delete
139:WP:NOR
135:Delete
95:Delete
550:Keep,
416:Grace
401:Grace
381:Keep.
330:Grace
309:Grace
281:Grace
158:e Ong
86:Grace
16:<
442:Keep
426:Keep
397:here
305:GFDL
291:Keep
265:Kuru
259:Keep
201:Keep
189:Keep
177:Keep
145:. --
143:WP:V
556:to
230:GWO
147:Ter
448:.
155:nc
141:,
48:.
151:e
69:♠
64:♣
59:♦
54:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.