Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12-21-12

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. --Ezeu 01:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12-21-12

I had {{prod}}ed this unsourced and badly title article before with the reason "unreferenced speculation about the future, WP:NOT a crystal ball, also opninion/original research WP:NOR" but the prod was removed with the comment "Mayan apocalypse theories are a liegitimate phenomenon, see article on 2012". As the only verifiable non-speculative content of this article is "December 21st 2012 is the end of the Mayan Calender." I suggest we just delete it. Kusma (討諭) 02:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense. SM247 02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if source can be sited, nothing wrong with the text of this page. Mostly Rainy 03:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Nothing wrong"? You mean aside from the use of first person pronoun and general OR essay tone to it? Irrespective of the relevance of the subject to WP, the article content itself is completely unencyclopaedic. Seb Patrick 08:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was the one who removed the prod tag. I agree that the article is badly written and lacks references, but the 21 Dec 2012 theory is a notable phenomenon, particularly in certain conspiracy theory and new age circles (although I don't neccessarily subscribe to such theories). A Google search for "mayan calendar 2012 end of world" reveals many relevant results. This one, for instance, lists numerous articles on the subject. The article could be rewritten, and possible moved to a more appropriate name, but the point I'm making is that it is a notable theory. Cnwb 03:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete with extreme prejudice. WP:NOR WP:NFT The basis of this is correct (The Mayans do believe the Earth will end at 2012) but everything else after that is cruft, original research, and incoherent. Hobbeslover | (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete irremediable mess. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. JIP | Talk 09:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as little more than a blog entry. Vizjim 10:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maya_calendar. Any useful info from this article (which probably isn't much more than a link to Technological singularity) can go there. --UsaSatsui 10:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The great bulk of the text is a direct copy from http://reality.sculptors.com/~salsbury/Articles/singularity.html. ScottW 12:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as gibberish --DV8 2XL 13:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite fascinating and a notable conspiracy theory. Wiki is where i come when i find out about these crazy things, like last night when i heard about the 'philadelphia project', the peer review process means its better than any other source. The theory may be a load of balls, but it is very interesting, like the fake moon landings or whatever.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjrobinson (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete complete nonsense Aeon 16:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, nonsense (albeit not patent nonsense), and completely unable to be salvaged. -- Kicking222 17:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maya_calendar per UsaSatsui. Fluit 18:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above digital_m e^(t/c) 21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' as a notable concept. The myan-calander "enddate" is a notable subject that would be well served by a well-written article explaining it. 12/21/12 is the most important date in the myan 20,000 year calendar. Without even talking about the end-of-the-world theories, it's still notable in the fact that it's equivalent to a new-years that comes once every 20 millenium. Maybe as an alternitive a rename to "Myan end of the calander" since the actual date (12/21/12) is still debated. ---J.S (t|c) 21:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn complete nonsense. My calender ends every year at December 31, and the same rambling collection of coincidence could be applied there too. But wait! My calendar also restarts on January 1! Gee... do you suppose...? Tychocat 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This debate should be centered around the theory's notability, not its cogency. Cnwb 04:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I did say "nn", agreed. My attempt to introduce humor was entirely unwarranted and added nothing to the debate. Tychocat 10:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My initial reaction was to start cleaning this up so that it could be judged only on the content, but as I re-parsed the content, 'Fails WP:OR' kept echoing in my thoughts. Hence, no cleanup, as I suspect it will be an unproductive exercise. Colon el Tom 12:14, 7 June 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.