Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of doomsday scenarios

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. W.marsh 20:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of doomsday scenarios

Duplicates lists and discussions at End of civilization and Human extinction. POV and Original Research, no balance or commentary on a controversial topic like the other two articles - the line between science fiction and real possible doomsday scenarios is hard to determine and needs lots of supporting evidence and contrary views.) Stbalbach 14:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep- List is not a duplicate and lists do not require explanation and the list is not POV and the list does have the potential to expand, therefore, it should stay. MapleTree 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course it is a duplicate, look at the articles, they all three purport to do the same thing: list doomsday scenarios. There is a long history of editors trying to merge End of civilization and Human extinction into a single article, but article approach differences have prevented it. Now we have a third person (yourself) with an unsourced list of doomsday scenarios and a third approach to the same problem. It's highly confusing for the reader to determine which list to look at. Also just because it is a list it is not exempt from original research and POV rules. Who says these are doomsday scenarios - half of them are science fiction as far as I and many others are concerned (based on previous edit histories of the other articles). -- Stbalbach 23:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The others are not a list and the "Further Reading" and "External Links" plus the articles themselves, provide plenty of references, my last words on the matter, BYE ! MapleTree 00:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV and OR, it also appears to have been created to circumvent the deletion of the Category:Human extinction. --Peta 02:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Peta. Just can't be made encyclopedic. It was a very nice Asimov book, though. [1] --Dhartung | Talk 12:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Unrelated concepts and topics mixed together in absurd way (like Ragnarok and Terrorism). An article about the book by Asimov would be useful, though. Pavel Vozenilek 12:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Peta and Pavel. Michael Kinyon 17:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. You gotta love how the first scenario is alien invasion. Arbusto 18:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Maybe we should do a category on this topic, if one doesn't exist. If there is a similar category, then I'll change my vote to delete.
  • I tried but they want to delete than one too ! Category:Human extinction MapleTree 23:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User:MapleTree posted a plea for votes to save this article 22:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC) on Talk:Famine, but apparently did not note it here. - Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Move to a category. This sort of thing doesn't really seem to work as a list. -- Gwern (contribs) 22:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This should be deleted as duplication (along with the two mentioned off the top, we have Doomsday event and Extinction event), but I thought I'd leave a note to Maple rather than piling one on: this may not be duplication in that you don't see elsewhere the info you think belongs here, but it is duplication insofar as those other pages ought to be able to handle what this list contains. That is, we seem to have enough articles on this topic (the list is functioning as a category, basically), so try to improve the other articles and, of course cite your sources. Also, rationalize what belongs. Terrorism can, of course, have a "catastrophic effect on humans" but it would only be an extinction level event as a proximate cause of something else (e.g., nuclear holocaust). I do not agree, BTW, that this "just can't be made encyclopedic." Potentialities of this sort can be sourced, and I think there might actually be an absence in our coverage (after just a glance): are we separating human level extinction from terrestrial tree of life extinction? Terrorism won't bother bacteria—is there anything (beyond the Sun's demise) that would eliminate all life on Earth? We should list/describe that, if we don't already. Marskell 23:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This article complements the other articles in question, Doomsday event, End of civilization and Human extinction. Whether any of those should be merged is a separate issue, and probably confusing this decision. In fact, including this (still explanding) complete list in any of the other articles would be overwhelming to the article and not appropriate. Better to link to this list. --Serge 23:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but rename to Events that could cause human extinction. 72.139.119.165 01:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed to delete.72.139.119.165 19:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Serge. Waitak 01:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Better handled as a category, as evidenced by the complete lack of prose in the list. Note that MapleTree is trying to recruit "keep" votes. --Carnildo 02:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, or merge as Serge suggested hereinabove. This list may need weeding: e.g. tornadoes are common and will not end the world, but a bad tornado may well be a "day of doom" for a small community Anthony Appleyard 05:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • See Super Outbreak - MapleTree 07:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Peta. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this is exactly what categories and AWB are for. In this case, sub-categories would likely help. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Obvious attempt by MapleTree to circumvent the outcome of the debate at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_27#Category:Human_extinction. --Ligulem 12:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not create Category:Human extinction I did create this list, which has a different definition to better fit these articles. MapleTree 11:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Serge — The decision regarding whether to keep this article or not should be made on its own merits; not on the outcome of a category deletion. The topic of doomsday scenarios is valid and encyclopedic. But some type of general merge or reorganization of the "end of..." pages may be beneficial. — RJH (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this list does not duplicate. it could use some sensible editing, but its concept is sound. Joan-of-arc 04:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: MapleTree is trying to solicit meatpuppets. Please see my post on Maple's talk page here; Maple posted the exact same message ("Could use votes to save this article [List of doomsday scenarios], thanks") on fifty-eight talk pages of articles associated with doomsday, beginning approximately 24 hours after this discussion started. I think Maple seriously compromised the impartiality of this discussion. --Iamunknown 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  I advised editors of a vote involving a list with that the article was on, nothing more and nothing less. MapleTree 10:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  MapleTree (talk • contribs) reported the warnings in his talk page as vandalism, but the request was rejected. -- ReyBrujo 15:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • As MapleTree (talk • contribs) legitimitely archived his talk page but illegitamately deleted my message to him, here is the link to the history page with my post. --Iamunknown 19:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw one of those "solication" requests from MapleTree on the Talk page for Supervolcano. The only reason I saw it was because I had posted a question on that talk page after forming a new interest in supervolcanoes. I'm sure I have all kinds of biases like anyone else, I'm just not sure why I could not be "impartial" in this voting simply because I learned about it on Talk:supervolcano. If you think my vote is not impartial, please explain why. To the contrary, I would say that my opinion on this issue, due to my lack of previous interest, is relatively neutral. Perhaps it is the neutral bias to which you object? --Serge 02:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

    I am unsure what you accuse me of objecting to by using the paradoxical term "neutral bias." I will tell you what I do advocate, however, and what I do object to. I advocate making objective decisions, by which I mean making decisions (keep, delete, merge, etc.) a posteriori. I consider Wikipedians who monitor the Articles for Deletion page more likely to be objective and a posteriori compared to Wikipedians solicited specifically because of the extent of the discussion's correspondence with their own preconceived ideas. By soliciting votes from fifty-eight articles related to the article we are discussing here, MapleTree (talk • contribs) has compromised this discussion by introducing possible a priori judgements. Specifically, because the preconceived ideas of Wikipedians who monitor Articles for Deletion are less likely to correspond to the article in discussion here than Wikipedians solicied from fifty-eight articles pertaining to doomsday scenarios, I consider the former more likely to be objective and more likely to be capable to pass a posteriori judgements than the latter. I consider the former group more likely to be able to accept or deny the strength of a deletion proposal on the basis of the strength of the arguments in support of deletion, rather than the extent of the proposal's correspondence with their own preconceived ideas. I do not think that your vote is necessarily impartial because you were solicited, Serge; because MapleTree solicted requests to "save this article," however, I think that he introduced sufficient a priori and subjective judgements to this discussion to create an impartial, subjective, and a priori discussion. --Iamunknown 03:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

    I see. It is the "save this article" language to which you object. I suppose that might be a problem, but it could work either way. When I saw it, I wasn't overwhelmed with a desire to go save an article, it piqued my interest to find out what the fuss is all about. I read the comments here, and the articles in question, and voted accordingly. It could have gone either way. I honestly don't think I was biased to find in favor of saving because of the language used in the solicitiation. --Serge 15:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

    I admire your a posteriori judgement, Serge. I object not only to the "save this article" language posted on fifty-eight peripherally-related talk pages by MapleTree (talk • contribs), but also to any solicitations to discuss the deletion of any article. Granted, the notice on every page discussed for deletion is specifically such a solicitation and is arguably most likely to attract possible a priori judgements, but I think it is necessary to prevent confusion; but it is unacceptable to attract any more possible judgements and thus further subjectively bias the discussion. Nonetheless, it is "...considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated [for deletion]...." (WP:SOCK) Finally, I wish participants in every discussion would "...disclose whether [they] are an article's primary author or if [they] otherwise have a vested interest in the article." (WP:AfD) Then we might not be having this discussion and instead be improving Wikipedia. --Iamunknown 00:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

    The full quote from WP:SOCK is, "It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate.". You conveniently left out that critical clause that I emboldened: in order to attract users with known views and bias. How MapleTree could possibly know the views and bias of me or anyone else who happened to stumble on to one of his innocent solicitations, I have no idea. But maybe his crystal ball is in better order than mine. Apparently you think so. --Serge 03:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

    I apologize for leaving out that clause. I did not intend to, as you accuse me of, "redact the relevant portions" and "conveniently [leave] out [the] critical clause." I honestly did not, at the time I quoted WP:SOCK, find it [the clause] important, although I can see I was mistaken. I fid not think I needed to illuminate that point. I was mistaken. I disagree, however, that the solicitations of MapleTree (talk • contribs) were innocent or innocuous; I argue that they were indeed harmful. I think that specifically because MapleTree's posts were a request to "save this article," they inherently attract (not solely, but largely) users with known views and biases that specifically correspond to this article, thus violating the specific clause of WP:SOCK in its entirety. --Iamunknown 06:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

    So your argument rests on the assumption that the "save this article" wording in the solicitations is likely to attract more of those who are inclined to save articles in general, to save this particular article, or both, than those who are more inclined to delete it for some reason. I disagree. I could see it working either way. It could just as easily have backfired on him, and, judging by the way the votes are going, appears to have accomplished exactly that. --Serge 22:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails list standards: this list has no firm requirements for inclusion ("events[] which could potentially have a catastrophic effect" is not a clear delineation). Also, it overlaps at least two existing resources that have themselves had intermittent efforts toward merger; further muddying of the waters is not necessary. Issues with MapleTree's possible efforts to subvert deletion result on previous content is troubling; this concern is made manifest with the information per Iamunknown, above. Serpent's Choice 05:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Either delete or merge with one of the similar articles, all of which should either be merged or should cross-reference each other. - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but define a criterion for inclusion of articles to be on the list. a working definition might be a catastrophe that could kill at least 100,000,000 people, a small enough number since that's less than two percent of the world population. Cdcdoc 15:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  Someone should be able to define a set of criteria for inclusion now. If the result is keep but define a set of criteria for inclusion, I doubt the criteria will be created because the list will have already been kept, the goal of achieving favorable consensus already achieved; but if the proposal is delete unless a set of criteria for inclusion is created, then there is significant timely motivation for the condition to be met. If a set of criteria cannot now be created, but can be created in the future, then the article can be nominated for deletion review. --Iamunknown 02:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unles a set of criteria for inclusion are created. I think that "if [an event] is listed as an X [potentially apocalyptic event], that [event] must have been identified as an X by a reliable published source" (from the essay Lists in Wikipedia). None of the events in this list give any note by any reliable published source as to their apocalyptic nature. Thus this list is original research. But I agree with Marskell (talk • contribs) that the content in this list can be made encyclopedic. But until specific criteria for inclusion are created such that this list cannot exponentially grow, and such that it only permits verifiable information, I nominate it for deletion. --Iamunknown 02:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. I thought of specific criteria I want to know immediately if I were to come to this article. Is it an article about doomsday, or about any events that pose existential risk? The two events are dissimilar. Doomsday may refer to different Christian eschatological beliefs, or it may refer to any doomsday event, which "...may range from a major disruption of human civilization, to the extinction of human life, to the destruction of the planet Earth, to the annihilation of the entire universe." (Doomsday event) Existential risk may not necessarily "...annihilate Earth-originating intelligent life...," but may merely "...permanently and drastically curtail its [Earth-originating intelligent life's] potential."

  So, is this article going to,

  1. elaborate on and illuminate various Christian eschatological belifes,
  2. list any doomsday event,
  3. detail any event which may "...annihilate Earth-originating intelligent life...," or
  4. merely list any event which may "...permanently and drastically curtail its [Earth-originating intelligent life's] potential."

  If it is the first, it is a duplicate of Eschatology; if it is the second, it is a duplicate of End of civilization; if it is the third, it is a duplicate of End of civilization; and if it is the fourth, it is deserves an entirely new name and new content, if that content is verifiable.

  There, if anyone can provide a specific set of criteria that does not specifically describe another article as I layed out, or if anyone can show me where my reasoning is wrong and how this list could be distinct from the three (and fourth hypothetical) article, then I will be impressed and will gladly consider changing my vote. --Iamunknown 02:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and keep the Doomsday category instead. Calwatch 04:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Suggested criterion: Any event which has the potential to annihilate intelligent life and also much of the planet's biodiversity; the entry must have a reliable source cited. Joan-of-arc 06:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• We've been through this before in the other articles. Just because a source lists it doesn't mean it's valid. Many of the sources list scenarios that are science fiction. Every entry needs to have a reliable source listed, with the scenario put into context in terms of its likelihood, and any contrary views presented. This simply can't be done in a "List of" article. We already have two other articles that do this. -- Stbalbach 14:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral List of Doomsday Scenarios would include: asteroid impact, supervolcanic eruption, variation in solar output and other scientific hypotheses based on past events. I believe the title of this list is intuitive and should be used in this regard. Pendragon39 04:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but edit I think it holds merit as an article, but things like hurricanes, which affect relativly few people in the whole world, and the article titled "The End is Nigh" should be removed from the list as "The End is Nigh" is not an actual even that could lead to eventual desturction of the world as we know it, but an editorial. All in all, keep the article, but see to it that it is redone properly. Optomal7 23:42, 6 October (UTC)
• Comment remove the nonsense entries like tornado and hurricane. It is ironic that one of the article's opponents Stbalbach re-inserts such items in the article (after their deletion), which are obvious nonsense and then oppose the article's existence. Doesnt sound like good faith. Cdcdoc 19:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Cdcdoc, your wrong. I am trying to get people to cite sources for adding and removing entries, this is Wikipedia policy. "Nonsense entries" is your personal opinion. Please take this up on the article talk page and defend your position and stop trying to start some kind of conspiracy theory. -- Stbalbach 19:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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.