Deletion of Predictions of the end of Wikipedia

Comment: to Criticism of Wikipedia. Per nom and XOReaster, and per . This article as it stands is pure trash. In the lead we have {{tq|Many online encyclopedias exist; proposed replacements for Wikipedia have included Google's since-closed Knol,12 Wolfram Alpha,3 and AOL's Owl.4}} which is ridiculous since Knol is closed and Owl doesn't even have a WP article. The section on "Decline in editing" is something covered in Criticism of Wikipedia. The section "Sources of viewers and funds" the content appears to have zero relevance to the subject, and is cited to a source which also doesn't say anything about Wikipedia ending. The section "Possible antidote" is  -- it talks of automated editing as an "antidote" and cites a single research paper -- (i) which is primary, (ii) which only gives a method for generating articles without commenting on if these methods would take over humans
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE||WP:OR)

Comment: I started this article. In first drafts I like to keep things simple and establish , which is Wikipedia's main inclusion criteria. At special:diff/807233190#References anyone can check the cited sources which all talk about how Wikipedia will end. When multiple sources have a topic as their focus, then that topic can be in Wikipedia. The nominator may be correct about some of the later content going off topic, but that issue is separate from notability and deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There is plenty of  to support - there is certainly a notable subject here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)