Deletion of Timeline of the future in forecasts

Comment: Wikipedia is not a collection of |unverifiable speculation, but it appears to me that nearly all of the predictions in this list are |verifiable. I don't think this information should be merged into the individual year articles, and AFD is the wrong venue for that anyway. I would probably support a new name for the list though
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:V)

Comment: Consensus seems to be that adequately sourced predictions should be allowed into the various future "year" articles - indeed, some contributors here are suggesting just that. Per  then, this list is a legitimate aid to navigation and browsing, it complements the individual articles, and as such it should be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LISTS)

Comment: I ask any closing admin to ignore the statement by Grsz, it's false on both accounts, the article fully meets  because it's verified and 'everything' is not by Arthur C. Clarke, just check the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: My interpretation of  is that Wikipedia cannot say "Technology X will be available by 2050," but can say, "Person Y estimates that technology X will be available around 2050
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: as a model of . None of these sources say all these things will happen in this order. Even if this article used entirely non-fiction sources, it would still be a fictional (or , your choice) future history with no place in an encyclopedia. Articles like this are why  is a policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OR||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: an absolutely indiscriminate list that mentions various topics from various works of fiction (or some vague speculations) that somehow have something to do with the future.  "Below is a comprehensive list of major future events..." no it's not.  It's a completely indiscriminate list of fictional or semi-fictional future-trivia.  And it's written entirely from |in-universe perspective -- it describes ''fictional'' ("predicted") depictions of future as if they were somehow real.  It's the ultimate crystalball to beat all crystalballs. The statements are sourced, but the sourcing is to ''primary sources'', not to ''reliable, independent, secondary sources''.  Now give me some of these secondary sources that show that these "predictions" are notable; or if you can't find any, then delete this future-cruft.  Indiscriminate collection of trivia, that's what it is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:WAF)