Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timewave zero

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:11, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Timewave zero
Original research. RickK 09:35, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * he {the author} always had questions as to whether the timewave was even worth beleiving. So do I. Delete. Radiant_* 14:52, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought, redirect to Novelty_Theory. Radiant_* 15:07, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or Redirect to Novelty Theory. ParkingStones
 * its not original research at all; none of those ideas were mine. They've been talked and written about for 30 years.  it may be patent nonsense but if its a notable meme that shouldn't matter.  only 14,000 hits on google, so its not that big, but not completely insignificant.  i vote to keep; if not as an article, at the very least as a redirect to Novelty_Theory.  (oh, i was the one who posted the entry.)  Heah 17:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * clarification: the 14,000 google hits are the combined results for the exact title searches of "timewave zero" (4,730) and "time wave zero" (9,370), not a keyword search . . .  Heah 18:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yikes, where's my tinfoil hat?? I beleive that if this is true, there are Big Problems in the offing for dollar stores!! (Oh, and delete)Denni &#9775; 01:48, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
 * Merge with either Novelty_Theory or Terence McKenna, and redirect to either of those. --sparkit 19:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.