Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (5th nomination)


 * 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   Keep per WP:SNOW, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Time Cube
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not a notable site/theory/person  Page resembles an attack page and could not be NPOVed. Sticky Parkin 15:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * to clarify on my latter comment- can't be made to have a neural point of view, because there are insufficient reliable sources. Sticky Parkin 15:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a FAMOUS crank theory, and a part of internet culture, often referenced and parodied. NPOV? Well, I don't know that ANYONE other than Gene Ray takes it seriously.  I think the article handles NPOV fairly well considering the topic is in essence a pile of crackpottery. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep He's a crackpot, but a pretty well known one, as the sources and external links show; "Time Cube" +"Gene Ray" gets four Google Scholar hits as well. I'm sure more references in popular culture media could be found with a bit of looking, but the sources already there confer notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * YOU TRY TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH OF CUBIC TIME AT YOUR OWN PERIL!!!1!cos(0)!1. Yes, it's a joke, but a notable one. The lectures held at MIT and Georgia Tech alone establish notability. Some of the comments on the creator could use some editing, but that's not grounds for deletion.  henrik  • talk  16:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The page needs improvement but it's a noteable topic. Lots42 (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article clearly establishes notability of the concept, per the other responses. I don't even really see any serious NPOV issues.  The Time cube is well-known as a crank theory, and so it should be characterized as such.  Any (unspecified) NPOV issues in the article should be dealt with in the usual way, by discussion and editing, rather than by deletion.  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep since it has significant coverage. As long as we're not presenting this as anything approaching sanity, much less a valid scientific theory. The article clearly states "Time Cube is a website". Your assertion of non-notability is, uh, hilarious, consdering that even the UK Google News shows 3 newspaper stories about the website. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 16:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- this isn't the second nomination for deletion, and possibly not even a single-figure number! Dave-ros (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, although everybody knows time isn't a cube, its more a big ball of wibbley wobbley timey wimey... stuff. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Four-dimensional keep - Highly notable crackpottery. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2008 (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.