Predictions of the end of Twitter: elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I did a search and there are other articles similar to this- Predictions of the end of Google and Predictions of the end of Wikipedia .  I wouldn't mind culling all of them.   — Sean Brunnock ( talk ) 11:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree about notability.  And to extend the argument to WP:NOT , it's hard to see hot-take opinion pieces as Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field ( WP:CRYSTAL ).  The 2014 and 2016 predictions in the Twitter article, and the truly stupid predictions at Predictions of the end of Google , should show that this type of content lacks encyclopedic value.  Market share data/traffic metrics would be encyclopedic (whether they show a rise of decline, as long as it's reliably sourced), but would belong in the main article.  DFlhb ( talk ) 07:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - WP:CRYSTAL is exactly right.  Some people consider a major reorganization to be a kind of end of Twitter as we know it, some mean the end of its mainstream popularity, some are predicting the company will declare bankruptcy, some mean the Twitter name and website will go offline forever.  Anything is possible, but the topic is far too vague to be verifiable.  〈 Forbes 72 | Talk 〉 22:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment if this is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL , then why is Predictions of the end of Wikipedia an existing article?  I don't think it's a violation, it is reliably sourced.  PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 14:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Wikipedia predictions mostly relied on philosophical/sociology arguments (that Wikipedia "could never work").  The predictions themselves are pure opinion (primary), and without the academics (secondary) analyzing and dismissing the bullshit Wikipedia predictions for what they are, that article would be a basic POV fail.  My argument wouldn't change if I had a time machine and knew for a fact that Twitter was going to die three months from now; we're still just listing people having "predicted nine of the last five recessions".  This is a child articles; if these op-eds wouldn't be WP:DUE enough for an entire summary-style section in the parent article, it makes little sense for the child article to exist (which no one will come across).  DFlhb ( talk ) 09:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 17 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete , synth, more than half of the refs are just Musk-related hype.  Artem.G ( talk ) 19:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as an unnecessary junk drawer.  A redirect to Twitter wouldn't hurt, but wouldn't be obligatory either.  Predictions and speculations made for different reasons at different times are, if they need to be discussed at all, best covered within the history of Twitter so that they have the proper context.  Otherwise, we're doing the equivalent of writing a "Top 10 Times Twitter Was Declared Dead" listicle.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTESSAY .  SWinxy ( talk ) 00:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Twitter per WP:ATD .  I think it can be summarized in a sentence or two.  PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 09:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect: Agree with this proposal.  User:Let'srun 18:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I should note that there is also a Predictions of the end of Google and Predictions of the end of Wikipedia .  InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 15:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect: a (very) short summary to Twitter .  WonderCanada ( talk ) 10:51, 24 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge