Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Illusion


 * 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 delete. Not many participants, but this is clearly an OR essay. And the incoherent comments of the creator here can't even be counted as a "keep", making this deletion uncontested.  Sandstein  19:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Time Illusion

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a place to publish original essays –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Can You review our page? Why is it up for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RADDB (talk • contribs) 03:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep/Move to clearer title the content of this article seems well written, and not from a particular POV. However, I'm not sure that it is at the right title; I think that "Time as an illusion" is a better fit. It needs a lede that explains what 'Time as an illusion" actually means, and to tie the article together, but deleting it seems a waste of good material, and a quick google search indicates that there is plenty of material here in terms of differing evidence and famous support and opposition to the idea, which can easily support an article Please WP:DONOTDEMOLISH.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, it could be moved to Draft space until ready for article status, as, at the moment, it currently overlaps quite a bit with other articles.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I have changed my mind, after a more thorough reading I came to the conclusion that although a topic could conceivably (and even easily) exist under the title "Time as an illusion", this article is not that article. It is written in a WP:TONE that is inconsistent with wikipedia, and likely cannot be salvaged from its current state. So while I recommend that an article be written about the subject, and while I appreciate RADDB's efforts to improve the article per my suggestions, I think that this current article should be deleted. I would suggest to RADDB to edit elsewhere on wikipedia, and to thoroughly examine other featured articles in order to better understand the concept of encyclopaedic formal tone before having another crack at the topic. The OP is correct, the tone of this article reads much too much like an 'essay'.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

We moved the page to "Time as an Illusion" like you requested — Preceding unsigned comment added by RADDB (talk • contribs) 04:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

A lede was added explaining time as an illusion as requested — Preceding unsigned comment added by RADDB (talk • contribs) 05:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to keep this article up until tuesday at least?RADDB (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that's not suspicious at all...  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry its just for a class project tomorrowRADDB (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The purpose of wikipedia is not for your class project. Request WP:SPEEDY Delete please. Apologies, I spoke brashly, and without good faith. Wikipedia can totally be improved as part of a school project, however, this article requires substantial work, and is not currently ready for userspace.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

But this information can be relevant for other people. Theres not an article that ties all these concepts together already — Preceding unsigned comment added by RADDB (talk • contribs) 06:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please sign your messages with four of these (~). I understand what you are saying, and I agree to a point (as I have indicated above). Perhaps we can move this conversation over to your talk page to discuss it further.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok thank you for discussing it. I have posted on our talk page and signed this time.RADDB (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Suddenly our talk page says it doesn't exist anymore? Can we keep discussing here?RADDB (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry its all good now on our talk pageRADDB (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * COMMENT FOR REVIEWER; the intentions of RADDB are good, but this article isn't ready for the namespace, I've suggested that they use the articles for creation review process as a way to get the article up to snuff and I've created a new draft of the article for them to work on. As I said, I think this topic has promise, and could eventually make a good article. As for now, I would consider this article to be resolved for now, and recommend speedy deletion of the userspace article. Thanks.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:59, 14 March 2016 (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.