Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (7th 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. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Time Cube
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I think this site may in fact fail WP:WEB. Realizing it's gone through a number of other VfDs and AfDs before our notability and sourcing idealizations had been thoroughly developed, I think it's time to re-evaluate. Essentially, WP:WEB outlines three criteria. Gene Ray's site fails the final two quite plainly. The first is the one that concerns us here: Now, we have what amounts to two independent reliable sources which discuss this website. One is an article in a student newspaper: The Maine Campus which deals substantively with the website circa 2004. The other is a listing in John Dvorak's PC magazine column from December 2003 where he lists it along with a half dozen other "crackpot" websites none of which have Wikipedia articles. I consider this listing to essentially be trivial coverage as defined in our notability guideline quoted above. If it wasn't we'd have articles on all the other websites listed in that article/directory including the perhaps arguably more famous Crank Dot Net.
 * 1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.  This criterion includes reliable  published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles,  books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:
 * 2) * Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
 * 3) * Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.

So we have one substantial independent, third-party source on which to base writing a Wikipedia article on this website. One (dare I say, WP:ONEEVENT?). That clearly does not satisfy our notability criteria.

In short, I think that this article was grandfathered in from a time when Wikipedia had looser inclusion guidelines. What's clear to me, however, is that barring some sudden interest by respectable news outlets, academics, or other reliable sources, there will not be a possibility to write an encyclopedic summary of this website for an appropriate Wikipedia article. Realize also, since Gene Ray redirects here that we do have some issues with WP:BLP. The article states that this is one of the most widely known "crackpot" sites on the internet and that he is "racist". For such an obscure offering, it seems very problematic that we are personally attacking the site's creator, who seems to suffer from a kind of graphomania, as such (indeed, there is only one person behind this website).

There may be a way to incorporate some of the information here in other, more general articles. However, a stand-alone article this does NOT warrant. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review in general can mean a lot of different things. When I refer to "peer review", I generally refer to the process by which reviews happen for most academic journals which is to say an editor sends the paper along to an acknowledged expert in the field who reviews the paper and vets it for the journal. Alternatively, we have in-house university journals which may send comments by the editor or an associated member of the university to the writer of the paper, but which ultimately do not rise to the standards we usually expect from peer review. That's my opinion of what's going on here. It's hard to say exactly how the review, if it really did happen, worked because there is no way to verify it. Usually in such cases we default to assuming the worst about the publication. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong speedy Keep per arguments in previous AfD, this nomination being the fifth and not the fourth nomination. In addition to that: The concept and the website has been analyzed in a peer reviewed article by Bei Dawei, which – along with a bunch of radio shows – the nominator conveniently forgot to mention. Furthermore, it was up for deletion in March 2010; exactly what "thorough development" of Wikipedia's policies has taken place since then? Notice also how the nominator brings up BLP issues here, instead of just nominating the redirect. (For the record, it's interesting how the deletionists have evolved: it used to be that they just nominated, now they first make sneaky edits to remove as much content as possible from the article in question.) Don't be worse than Hitler, please. Woseph (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahem, the claim that "Bei Dawei" has "analyzed" this website in a "peer-reviewed article" is manifestly false. You can access the supposed article here. This is published in the "journal" of Hsuan Chuang University which is neither peer-reviewed nor has any impact factor whatsoever, essentially being an in-house student-journal maintained by a lower-tier private university in Taiwan. It might as well be self-published. As for the "bunch of radio shows", I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but given your dishonesty with regards to the "peer-reviewed article", I'd guess that these are not likely to rise to the standards of notability outlined above. But, be my guest. List the prominent radio shows that have substantively discussed this website that can be used as sources. And, "for the record", I'm amazed that Godwin's Law was satisfied on the first comment. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know it's not peer-reviewed? Not all peer-reviewed journals are prestigious or videly circulated, and only journals in JCR get impact factors. As for radio shows, there are several ones, but he was on Lionel's show several times; a clip is available here . (And, "for the record", I'm amazed that you didn't get the joke.) Woseph (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The editorial policy of the journal on the page I linked to indicates that it is a university journal which, in Taiwan, typically means that no outside peer-review occurred. I suppose it is a possibility that this particular journal does that, but the onus is on you to show it is reliable, not on me. The fact that there are zero citations to this paper also indicates that it is not a very good source and doesn't deserve to be placed on any reliably sourced pedestal. Also, independent analysis of their more highly-cited (according to a quick citation search I did) Journal of Management Studies indicates that it is the lowest ranked journal in Taiwan: I take this as an indicator that this is really plumbing the depths to claim that this represents any sort of reliable source. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone claiming to be Bei Dawei, and posting from an IP belonging to the Hsuan Chuang University, says that the article was peer reviewed Talk:Time_Cube/Archive_12. No one said it is a prestigious journal, but it does seem to be a peer reviewed journal. The survey you linked, which as you pointed out yourself did not rank the journal in question, states that 60 journals met their criteria, but only 46 were included in the survey. This means that HCJM could be number 46 out of 60 possible – not too bad. (Also, isn't it interesting that the article you link states, as a corollary, that HCJM has "a review system", and the same is true for a bunch of other journals with similar sounding "university" names? I take this as an indicator that this AfD is really plumbing the depths to claim that Time Cube is not notable.) Woseph (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep for reasons detailed in previous 4 deletion discussions. Infrogmation (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually this seems to be the 6th nom.- Wolfkeeper 19:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, is it maybe possible to spell-out which arguments exactly apply to the rationale above? It's not as though I didn't read the other AfDs. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep we've kept it 5 times already, let it go.- Wolfkeeper 19:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a poor reason. Arguments sink or swim on their merits, not based on the number of times an article has been discussed. None of the previous discussions actually looked at the sources or attempted to ascertain the notability. I have. That makes this time different and substantively so. If you cannot refute my analysis, then it would behoove you to not !vote. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It can change, but it's almost certainly not going to, you're wasting your time. This seems to be a notable topic that receives a healthy number of page hits.- Wolfkeeper 19:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The number of page hits an article receives is irrelevant. We have objective criteria by which we are supposed to measure the notability of an article. We need not go by the presumption of editors as to whether an article "seems" to be on a notable topic or not. Some of our most popular articles were deleted for lack of encyclopedic worthiness (e.g. Articles for deletion/List of euphemisms) ScienceApologist (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguments sink or swim on their merits, not based on the number of times an article has been discussed., so we should just keep listing it, ignoring any double jeopardy issues? Interesting idea. Woseph (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is truly the same argument, then no. I submit that I'm making demonstrably different claims. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

When did Wikipedia start taking itself so seriously? And would it be possible to have the stick surgically removed from our collective backsides, so that the site can go back to being at least marginally interesting and fun? Time Cube is here because it's an interesting topic. What, do you guys think the 30k of bandwidth that the article is taking up is somehow slowing down the Internet? Sheesh. I used to spend hours a day on Wikipedia, exploring odd and interesting topics. But now it's like the world's worst version of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Everything fun, interesting, or quirky is being flensed away, all to satisfy some anal-retentive killjoys who apparently can't stand the idea of anyone valuing something that they themselves don't value. Worst yet, Wikipedia has actually become the OPPOSITE of what it should have been- instead of being a place where you can find little-known information on a wide variety of topics, it's become a place where you can find ten thousand words on different Light Sabre combat styles, but not a damn word on anything current or timely. I recall back when David Motari caused a national stir by killing a dog on video in Afghanistan. Several people tried to build Wiki pages about it, but were constantly shut down by the increasingly tight-assed Wiki Guardians who seem to think it's their job to keep anything topical or newsworthy off the site.

So in closing: Unclench your butt-cheeks and let the Time Cube article stay. It's not hurting anyone, and maybe, just MAYBE by keeping it and a few other "worthless" articles around, you can salvage what little is left of Wikipedia's soul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that you are looking for something that Wikipedia is not. Yes, the site is different from what it was when it started. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep This is the Time Cube of AfDs. Artw (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficiently notable. Sufficiently sourced. Does not violate anything I can find .  While "harm" is not relevant as a reason for deletion, it is clear that no harm is done to anyone by the artile as it stands.  Stare decisis holds - prior AfDs, absent any reason to believe consensus has changed, should be weighed here. Collect (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Nominator's argument seems to be that sources are not recent. However,Notability is not temporary: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Gandalf61 (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is not the most notable thing in the world but it is notable enough to meet our criteria. It will remain forever as a very minor footnote in the history of human mental health. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * keep probably unscientific but notable fringe theoryWeaponbb7 (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:WEB is a guideline, not a policy. The core policy here is WP:VERIFY - does the "one substantial independent, third-party source" satisfy our verifiability policy? If it does we can Keep the article. If it doesn't we must Delete the article as unverfied/able. Exxolon (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. As to verifiability, well, what needs to be verified? Time Cube and Gene Ray's beliefs are as far as I can tell unique to Gene Ray. The article makes no claim that these beliefs are true (nor as far as I can tell does anyone in seriousness other than Ray). The Time Cube "theory" is verified by Ray's writings, website, public appearances, and third party reporting, to the extent that it can be said to be verified that "Gene Ray says such and so which he calls Time Cube".  -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that this is about all we can verify. "Gene Ray says such and so which he calls Time Cube." is the only sentence really possible for this article. And this seems to fly in the face of WP:PSTS as an idealization, in my mind. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - really not notable or of borderline notability. Fringe on top of that. What possible reason could we have for keeping a fringe theory of questionable notability. Yworo (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * delete - no evidence of notability.--Scott Mac 17:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This is definitely not notable. The article has two sources. This one is not sufficient for notability, as it's just a fluff piece in The University of Maine student newspaper  This article gives the subject about 3/4 of one paragraph, for all of 4 sentences.  It's not notable under Wikipedia rules, and it must be deleted in spite of WP:ILIKEIT votes.  However, it's linked to so much in Wikipedia  that it should be kept somewhere as an essay or in WP space.  BE——Critical __Talk 18:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The article has two sources.", which does not imply that there aren't more sources available. Unfortunately, some users have felt the need to delete good sources. For instance, a TechTV interview was removed shortly after the article was nominated . Further sources were mentioned above. Woseph (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Violation of WP:EXTERNAL We can't knowingly link to copyright violation material, It was on Tech Tv but the Video on youtube was not put up by Tech Tv Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not just remove the link, but keep the fact that it was mentioned on TechTV? Woseph (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't meet the source guidelines, we can't count it. BE——Critical __Talk 19:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TechTV is not notable? Woseph (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Critical, I said it was not Valid to be WP:EXTERNALly linked to on youtube. I fail to that does not mean it can cited to the episode of Tech TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (talk • contribs)
 * Clearly this is not the nominator's fault but I am very uncomfortable with an AfD where significant sources and content are removed from the article during the discussion. People participating in the AfD have the right to see the complete article and evaluate the worth of it themselves. I would advise anybody considering suggesting a "delete", or who has already suggested to "delete", to look at this version:, which is the article as it was when the AfD was initiated.
 * On the specific issue of the Tech TV coverage, Weaponbb7 is right. We can't link to copyvios on YouTube but we certainly can cite the original coverage. References do not need to be links. It makes verifiability difficult but not impossible. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - light on content but clearly notable & well known as a crank. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - as the article currently stands, it doesn't appear to sufficiently establish notability. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Changing to keep. The TechTV interview  establishes notability of the subject.  "TechTV was broadcast in 70 countries, reached 43 million households" so his interview there in combination with the other sources establishes sufficient notability. BE——Critical __Talk 20:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to "Gene Ray" the guy who created the website seems to be far more notable than his theory, we can do a subsection of the time cube theory in his WP:BIO. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources in mind we could use for a bio? BE——Critical __Talk 21:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw more soures about him and His quirky idea than i saw about the quirky idea. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to move it... and more fun to write. BE——Critical __Talk 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. He is only potentially notable because of his website and has no prospect of notability beyond that. Therefore the website is and must remain the primary topic. GDallimore (Talk) 01:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It looks like several sources have been removed from the article. It might need some work, but I don't see any compelling reason why it should be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I added the rescue tag in case more sources that everyone agrees upon can be found, hwoever I consider the people running around deleting the current sources to be on extremely shaky ground. Artw (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article exists solely to poke fun at the site's creator. Who suggested moving it to Gene Ray? Really bad idea, he's had even less independent coverage than his website. The trouble is, everything written about the website is in unreliable or trivial sources. There is no serious coverage of this (and yes you can cover stupid things in a serious way). Guy (Help!) 22:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   spill the beans 23:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable website.   Snotty Wong   spill the beans 23:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The website is notable for being discussed by others, and a nonpareil example of internet crackpottery. (I wonder how many people advocating "delete" were not yet online a dozen years ago and are thus unaware how famous in internet culture Time Cube was.) It is still an observable meme, referenced in blogs example, websites examples and t-shirts example. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just about keep If I didn't think it was notable, I would have nommed it for deletion a month ago when its presence started to disrupt my calm. There are two sources cited as the article currently stands, both of which appear to be reliable. One (Maine Campus article) definitely gives it more than trivial coverage. The other (PC Magazine) mentions some specific things about the site which can be (and have been) extracted and placed in the article without original research. It therefore meets the requirements set out in WP:NOTE. So we have two reliable, non-trivial sources as required by WP:NOTE and by WP:WEB.
 * Also, I dispute the statement in the nomination that "we'd have articles on all the other websites listed in that [PC Magazine] article". Not true - that would only be the case if there were a SECOND reliable source for each of those other websites, as there is in this case. GDallimore (Talk) 00:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While two sources is the absolute minimum for the "multiple" requirement in WP:WEB, it says "multiple non-trivial" and this fails in that sense. A single paragraph in a list of crack-pot sites in a magazine column (not a full article) doesn't count for non-trivial. This actually fails WP:WEB. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Quality, not quantity is the issue with triviality and, as I've said, both sources give useful information for putting into an article without requiring original research and therefore neither of them is trivial. GDallimore (Talk) 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you misunderstood my reasoning. I did not say they were poor quality, but that doesn't mean that they are non-trivial. A passing mention in a RS is fine for inclusion in a wikipedia article, but it definitely does not establish notability. This is spelled out clearly in the policy. The PC Mag article is a passing mention, it doesn't provide any in-depth detail of explanation of the topic - just includes a single short paragraph as part of a list. At issue here is whether we have enough coverage in reliable sources to establish the the topic is notable enough for a wikipedia article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't misunderstand, I just completely disagree for the reasons I have given. There is in-depth (or significant in the words of NOTE) coverage in PC Mag (ie quality), irrespective of the briefness of the mention (ie quantity). This is clearly the case from the fact relevant criticisms about the style of the website and its prominent featuring among crank sites can be extracted from the source without original research. GDallimore (Talk) 23:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I see your point. I just happen to disagree. If we created an article for everything and everyone ever mentioned by Dvorak in his column (as opposed to an article in PC Magazine) we could simply drop the notability requirement. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you even read what I said? "that would only be the case if there were a SECOND reliable source for each of those other websites". GDallimore (Talk) 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did read what you said. I continue to disagree that the topic is notable based on the sources given. If it's notable someone should be able to find other sources that meet WP:RS and then this whole issue would be moot. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and atop nominating it already. Google news shows two places it has received coverage at.  You need a paid subscription to access either of those articles though.  There was even a documentary made called Above God by Hanover, about Time Cube.   D r e a m Focus  04:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Guy. The article fails to establish notability and the coverage that is available mainly serves to poke fun at the owner. AniMate 05:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not temporary. This website was once very notable, it keeps that notability. LK (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG as it does not have significant coverage in multiple independent (mainstream) WP:RS. Verbal chat  11:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as having sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I also note that I am very bothered when articles are repeatedly nominated for deletion when nothing substantial has changed; it seems disruptive and it's difficult to assume good faith, especially when the article is nominated several times. ElKevbo (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 *  keep. It has already been merged with Gene Ray. Use the talkpage to build consensus whether it should perhaps be moved to Gene Ray and reworked into more of a biographical structure. Since this is de facto the article about Gene Ray, it also needs to comply with WP:BLP. ScienceApologist is right that at the bottom of things, this is an article about a person suffering from a kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and while it is fair to discuss this Ray terms of his impact as a classic online crank, we need to be careful not to let this turn into an attack page. --dab (𒁳) 15:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is an article about a website, not a person. The website may be notable. The person most assuredly is not. Dlabtot (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. He is notable for Time Cube and nothing else. Time Cube, as a website and as a theory, is the encyclopaedic subject. If it reads like a BLP, particularly a disparaging one, then that means it needs a good cleanup. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I read the actual website and its nothing more than the incoherent ramblings of an obviously mentally ill person and therefore not notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with your use of "therefore" in your reasoning. It is perfectly possible for something/somebody to be crazy and still notable if it/they have the coverage required. Mein Kampf probably fits the description of "the incoherent ramblings of an obviously mentally ill person" yet it is very notable. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an anonymous forgery plagiarised and cobbled together from other sources to support an incoherent conspiracy theory with absolutely no basis in fact, yet it remains highly notable. Nero, Richard Dadd and Emperor Norton were all crazy and yet notable. I am not saying that Time Cube is as notable as all these, but being crazy does not not preclude it being notable enough for inclusion. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep- Clearly notable. Time Cube itself is obviously more nutty than a squirrel's turd but as far as crackpot fringe theories go this one is notable enough to be written about. Reyk  YO!  08:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have one thing to add to the discussion. The only reason I ended up at this deletion page was because I came to Wikipedia looking for information on the Time Cube website. To that end, Wikipedia proved a useful reference for me, and is that not the point? 109.224.152.101 (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep. Subject of Above God award winning documentary. With the other sources, that should be enough. Ray's most notable for his work popularizing the theory, so the article about the web site would describe that better than one that describes where he was born and how he grew up. --GRuban (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove the "Weak", make it a full "Keep". Since the article was marked for Rescue, I decided I'd do that, looked around and found several more references, which I added to the article with a bit more text. He's not David Icke, but seems notable enough in his own way. --GRuban (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - this and previous AfDs have provided multiple nontrivial sources that establish notability. Ergative rlt (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- There are more than enough sources in the article that help it satisfy notability. Continuing to bring it up for deletion does not change this, and only serves to waste everyones time. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and SALT all future potential AfD's for the topic. WP:NTEMP applies, and there's nothing been said here that's effectively challenged previous AfD outcomes. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - at least moderate notability, though the article should focus more on the reasons for its notability and less on describing its actual content. Zach99998 (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficient independent references for notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I was going to say "Keep"...until I read our article and discovered that our best sources were only a handful of college newspapers that actually published articles solely devoted to Gene Ray's theory. The rest of the mainstream media either ignores Time Cube or has given it passing mention among lists of oddities. Wikipedia and Gene Ray's site come up as the top two search engine hits for "Time Cube". Worse, the only literature coverage uses Wikipedia as its source. To me, that indicates it doesn't have sufficient notability to stand on its own. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stare decisis. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't have the real, high quality sources encessary- apparently no one out there really cares beyond treating it as a curiosity. Time to cut it loose. Courcelles (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2010 (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.