Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anachronism and time travel

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, unanimously, as copyvio and/or original research. - DavidWBrooks 13:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Anachronism and time travel
The writers (from 2003) are insisting on personal credit, as seen at the top of the article. Very anti-wikipedia! If this can't be rewritten to remove the need for a byline, then it should be deleted. DavidWBrooks 18:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research? Copyvio? Al 18:35, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * If the writers insist on personal credit, this will have to be deleted. It's just not what we do here. Aside from that, the topic is interesting but I'm unsure as to whether it could plausibly be turned into something encyclopedic. In its current form, it's more of a speculative essay. --Fang Aili 19:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, that byline with the "dont' remove it" tag has been there for almost two years (since November 2003) and has survived a number of edits. I'm surprised it hasn't been vfd-ed before now. - DavidWBrooks 19:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, OR, somehow it's also copyvio, but I can't figure out how. Also, kooky, read the stuff on the futuristic ice sculptures? Sdedeo 20:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, OR. android  79  21:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete because of peculiar copyright status AND WP:NOR. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If they're not willing to remove the byline then they have submitted this by mistake. It's original research anyway. Average Earthman 21:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete What isn't OR is covered by Ancient astronaut theory. ManoaChild 21:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - if the license for the text of this article, or the conditions of said license, are incompatible with Wikipedia, then the article has to go to avoid legal issues. Rob Church Talk 22:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as either OR or lack of appropriate license terms, as above. MCB 23:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, OR. Dottore So 00:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject is interesting but not encyclopedic, and the logic is peccable. &mdash;Herbee 22:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Long list of pseudoscience anachronisms presented as established fact, so not npov, mischaracterizes for example Tipler cylinder, so inaccurate, demands credit, so vanity.---CH  (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, copyvio followed up with original research. -Sean Curtin 19:44, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page..

Editing to belatedly provide information regarding the creation of the page and the supposed 'special license terms' and such. The above note suggests adding such information to the article's talk page (inappropriate as it's deleted) or in an undeletion request (inappropriate as I don't wish to request that it is undeleted). Therefore I am adding this information here (WP:IAR). The issue of original research is a valid one, as is the better coverage of Ancient astronauts.

My recollection is that the writer ('a girl called Ben' from h2g2) released their work under the GFDL, and I imported it into Wikipedia. My contribution was merely to cut out the non-wikipedia-appropriate stuff. So it is simply not the case that the writer is "demanding credit" for "vanity" reasons. Rather, I added the credit notice because that is what the GFDL requires, and I didn't want to ask the author for special exemptions. It certainly wasn't a copyright violation as it stood.

It's sad that GFDL material is incompatible with Wikipedia without special exemptions, but the GFDL sucks, so I guess it's to be expected. Had I been around during the deletion process, I might have bothered to contact Ben and ask for those exemptions, but it's no huge loss. Martin (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)