Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metatron's Cube


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was redirect to Flower of Life (geometry).  MBisanz  talk 21:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Metatron's Cube

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pure original research and synthesis of unrelated ideas. The only sources for this claim are to WP:FRINGE beliefs and there is no independent notice that we would require for a stand-alone fringe article. jps (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * delete, unless reliable sources can be found for it which seems unlikely: a search turns up quite a few refs but all fringe ones.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. This is gratuitously invalid deletionism over an obviously extraordinarily notable subject, with a presently sub-par (nonetheless good-looking and well formatted) Wikipedia article. I'm not even a specialist in this field, just a casual noob, and I know that it's notable geometrically, culturally, artistically, historically, or otherwise. But you ignored all those obvious categories just to pigeonhole it as the one thing (some fringe theory about something) that you could try to disqualify.  WP:OR is text "for which no reliable, published sources exist", not text for which the sources Wikipedians haven't posted yet, you haven't found yet, you don't know how to find, or you don't want to find.  Deletion is not a valid response to a subpar article, period. You don't delete it; you fix it, you call others to action, or you just walk away. — Smuckola(talk) 10:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - this may indeed be a notable cultural meme however I cannot see any scholarly artcles relatred to the subject. Certainly none of the references approach the standard we require. If suitable references can be found I'd be happy to reverse this opinion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The entity exists as an "esoteric" idea, "aether research" and such, but the article should be better sourced, e.g. from these Google Scholar materials. There seem to be even two meditation-assitance patents mentioning the term ;)... If no RS are provided soon, then delete. Zezen (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article seems hopelessly unclear as is, but I'm not able to evaluate if it could be defended with better sourcing. Tom Ruen (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wouldn't have known about it otherwise, it presumably appears in the book cited in reference and if so should be tied more closely to its source. 9and50swans (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as NN and unsourced. The references don't actually mention a "Metatron's Cube", and after five years, it's looking like actual references aren't going to appear. The residual content in this article would make for a good half-paragraph in the Flower of life article. Sneftel (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a summary of what has already been published, and not a publisher of original thought. For this to remain, someone needs to identify 2-3 sources which feature Metatron's Cube as their subject. Right now, 0 sources have been identified. Someone please point out the good sources if they are here.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:10, 20 November 2015 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.