Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupations of 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. — Aitias // discussion 21:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occupations of the future[edit]

This entry is pure speculation and original research. It only links top level domains, and even if it would cite any relevant studies, it would be a copyright violation for directly repeating the study. No matter how hard you study, there's no solid way to predict the future. Article also doesn't state the relevant country the study was done in. I recommend deletion. Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment a splendid example of an article which could well be written, but as is, is not. Many hundreds of sources, and definitely not limited to the one study cited. Because it is an "Actual topic" of discussion, it is not WP:CRYSTAL - we pretty much know that there will be occupations in the future, and all the article needs to show is where the main studies and articles think they wll be. Collect (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added some concrete material, deleted spamlink. No OR needed. Collect (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are certainly some reliable sources that could be used to come up with a reasonable article if someone had the time to do it. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 13:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mostly WP:OR and wikipedia's not a WP:CRYSTAL ball for such speculation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculative and essay-ish at best, nevermind WP:OR. §FreeRangeFrog 19:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the subject inherently invites crystal ball material. While it might be a subject of interest, it is not a subject of interest about which anything definite can be said, even using published sources. WillOakland (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This falls squarely under WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; misses all the major ones: Starship captains, Carbon cops, Glacier measurers, and Klingon translators. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2009 (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.