This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mackensen (talk) 05:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a vanity page for one of the too simple theories of an obscure academic. There are many detailed, well thought out theories on this interesting topic --AlainV 18:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Even though the theories does not reveal the secret of God's nature, it doesn't mean it don't belong in the free encyclopedia. I recently heard of this theory, and I looked it up here, and here it was. Didn't make me a physics major, but I appreciated it. ---Drange

• Delete. --AlainV 18:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Note: I wrote the entry; I did however not write what AlainV deem a simple theory of an obscure academic. This is now declared by the opponent a Vanity Page. In the entry for such it states: A page should not be cast away as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. Note also that a link to this alleged obscure academicicians web page is already listed on the entry for Fermi Paradox. Unfortunately searching on Wikipedia for The Great Filter yielded no entry (Google web and group searches do) and that was the reason I wrote this entry. If, as is claimed, there are many detailed, well thought out theories on this interesting topic I would be genuinely interested to see them.

Moreover, the author of this alleged too simple theory Robin Hanson does also have an entry, in spite of his status as an obscure academic. While I am not him (nor have I contacted him) I would also like a far more specific reason for his alleged obscurity than one sentence. His [page] does not like that of a charlatan, and numerous mainstream articles are listed. My considered view is therefore to keep this entry. 80.212.11.201 20:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have taken the trouble of reading Hanson's Web page on his "great" filter and it does not explain anything, or bring anything new to the debate. It is just a compendium of some other views on this. Hanson is known for his contributions in other fields, but not in this one. There are many well thought out theories around Dyson's Dyson sphere and even a relatively lighter idea like Bradbury's Matrioshka Brain is more known and developed than Hanson's Web page on "The great filter. In fact the Wikipedia article on the Fermi Paradox sums things up much better than Hanson's pages on the Web. --AlainV 02:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now that the argument is transformed from one of "a simple theory of an obscure academic" into "just a compendium of some other views on this" I move to dismiss the proposal for deletion as the basis was clearly poorly understood or researched. Moreover "The Great Filter" is a known expression (ref earlier notes on Google). And while the entry on Fermi Paradox does sum things up more briefly, The Great Filter theory is more complete. Were one to take even more "trouble" in reading it one would also see original contributions (see for instance chapters starting with "Reconsidering " as well as "Technical Appendix"). The Great Filter states that thye filtering can be prior to our stage in development but also later on. Original research listing and quoting from previous work is not unusual, to the best of my knowledge there us only one serious exception, that of Louis-Victor de Broglie on his paper on Wave-particle duality. 80.212.51.83 13:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I see no valid reason for deletion.
  • Comment by 12.151.32.25, the same IP was also responsible for a series of hoax articles on the same day. Average Earthman 09:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:20, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article establishes that this is a theory that exists beyond the writing of one author. Gamaliel 01:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to Fermi paradox. Shimmin 01:28, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or at the very least merge and redirect as suggested by Shimmin. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect as Shimmin. It will fit nicely with the other proposed explanations listed at Fermi paradox. FreplySpang (talk) 02:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Merge with Fermi paradox. Megan1967 03:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Fermi paradox. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect.Mikkalai 01:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before concluding a merge, note that The Great Filter covers the development (and/or prevention) of civilisations, aliens as well as our; while the Fermi Paradox covers why an alien civilisation, if it exists, has not contacted us. Thus there is a difference in scope. One could of course merge these but then also Drake Equation for completeness, at which point it gets rather big. (I have already voted for keep previously) 85.164.81.159 21:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The Drake equation and the Fermi paradox are interlinked subjects, but one does not subsume the other. All ("all"? ...well, yes) the Great Filter does is explore one of the possible explanations for the Paradox in slightly greater detail. Merge, redirect, bingo. DS 13:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.