Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World domination in the future

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. Over half the !votes are for delete, parts of the article seem to violate WP:SYN, and the "popular culture" section mixes past and future indiscriminately. Will userfy if requested.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World domination in the future

Hm, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of fact and fictional conspiracy theories involving crystal balls, board games, and star trek episodes. Anyway, which world is being dominated? Is this talking about Earth, Middle-Earth or the Potterverse? Highly amusing essay, but it is an essay, not an article, and it is original research.

I just hope the Daleks/Martians/Chinese Communists/Antichrist or Michael Jackson don't get me for this nomination. Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and why doesn't this mention the Wikimedia Foundation?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy; most of the content was initially split from the world domination article by Keraunos (talk · contribs) - he may be interested in preserving this wonderful piece of work in his userspace. It is great stuff, but it's not right for an encyclopedia - it's comprised wholly of original research, rambling predictions, and a merry mix of fancruft and fantasy science. fish&karate 13:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge back to world domination and userfy or move to a subpage of the talk page of the World Domination article for the rest. Taking over the world and world government is a fairly well known fictional trope, and at minimum a list of notable examples belongs in the article in chief. The rest may not be ready for prime time yet, but should be preserved. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the world domination article as-is is kinda sucky. Frankly, the article was better a year or two ago ([1]). All the "world domination in fiction"al stuff was excised a few months ago, and never replaced. fish&karate 14:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: there is a lot of fascinating content here, and if reliably sourced with a minimum of synthesis, could conceivably produce an interesting article. I disagree with the notion that an article on this topic is inherently encyclopedic. I suggest userfying (with a redirect to world domination to preserve the history per GFDL), and after a few months bringing it to DRV or MfD to assess its merits. In the case that userfication is not an option, I would prefer to keep and stub to get rid of some of the more harmful nonsense. the skomorokh 15:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any merit in this, it would need to seperate fact and fiction. I could see an article on World domination in science fiction for instance.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything is worthy of a "...in popular culture" article, it's world domination. I support the split proposal. the skomorokh 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CBALL. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject does not exist as a coherent topic, and is not suitable for a separate article. The information given here seems to have been fairly artificially extracted from sources dealing with other subjects and fairly artificially assembled here. Also an strong element of WP:OR (specifically WP:SYN). Nsk92 (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought nor is it a soapbox. MuZemike (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an arbitrary and incoherent collection of material, some of it OR. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not a fan of applying WP:SYN indiscriminately, but this a case where citations are used solely to verify real and fictional events in order to produce an (incoherent) original essay. It's one of those examples where individual paragraphs make sense and are sourced, but the whole article is a rambling hoo-ha. The main problem is that the article has an extremely vague topic. You can dump tons of science fiction books, movies and video games in it. Like that were bad not enough, the article mixes references to fiction with references to some real world events, e.g. citing facts about the Chinese economy. It's not even clear if the article takes itself seriously and is trying to be a WP:CBALL, or if it attempts to be a list of scenarios from fiction. I think it should be removed for failing WP:SALAT, i.e. it is an overinclusive list of "world domination scenarios", some purely fictional and some that constitute original research attempts to produce a WP:CBALL. VG ☎ 18:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP I wrote most of the world domination article, both past and future, in late March 2007. This article was separated recently from the main world domination article because it was felt by people on the discussion page that the history part and the future part of the article should be separate. It is important for people to be able to analyze possible future world developments so people can choose what kind of future they want, especially if one is interested is futurology. The article is not original research, the references are from well-known contemporary authors such as Richard Heinberg and Ray Kurzweil. The popular culture section is very interesting, entertaining, and informative and the information in it was contributed by dozens of editors over the past year and half when it was part of the world domination article. Keraunos (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep the popular culture section for the possibility of being used in its own article. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, that trivia section is the part that needs the most removing. Spellcast (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or userfy, per Karate-fish. Ironically, the original World domination article and this one both suffer from a loss of control over the editing process, so that they went from one overly long article to two overly long articles. After looking at both articles, I think that they're both long... but not very interesting, entertaining or informative. The topics range from empires whose rulers thought that they had conquered the world, or at least dreamed about it, some musings about how our planet of 7 billion might somehow come under one government in the not-too-distant future, and about cartoon characters who dreamed of world conquest. As the old Tears for Fears song goes, "everybody wants to rule the world". Mandsford (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improving article I added more references to the sections of the article on the World Federalist Movement and Ray Kurzweil's book The Singularity is Near. I also added links to the main articles relating each section at the beginning of each section. Keraunos (talk) 07:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC) I also just added a section with numerous references on efforts to establish a worldwide restoration of the Caliphate. Keraunos (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there's been good faith attempts to build this article, I still don't think it addresses the issues given by VasileGaburici. Spellcast (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2008 (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.