Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Cube: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Fix |
Move 2nd nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (2nd nomination) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
**Keep. [[Meta:Wiki is not paper|Wikipedia is not paper]]. – [[User:Olathe|Olathe]] 04:15, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
**Keep. [[Meta:Wiki is not paper|Wikipedia is not paper]]. – [[User:Olathe|Olathe]] 04:15, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
||
**Redirect.--[[User:Gtrmp|Sean]] 05:44, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
**Redirect.--[[User:Gtrmp|Sean]] 05:44, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
||
==VfD February 2004== |
|||
*[[Time cube]] another one of those crank theories [[User:Archivist|Archivist]] 00:42, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
** (I assume you really mean [[Time Cube]]). See [[Talk:Time_Cube/Delete]]. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 00:51, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|||
**Keep, as dirty as it makes me feel. It's quackery, but it's famous quackery, and that makes it encyclopedic. Now I think I'm going to go take a shower. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 02:25, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
** I think we should remove this listing. This article went through VfD not two weeks ago, and there's no reason to suppose opinions will have changed since. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 03:11, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|||
**Delete - I didn't have to read far to see Ms. Cleo doing my horoscope... - [[User:Texture|Texture]] 03:56, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|||
**DO NOT vote on this entry. Previous discussion is at [[Talk:Time Cube/Delete]]. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] |
|||
***When i posted this i was unaware of a previous debate. BUT I would not be presumtious to instruct people not to vote. This sort of rubish reduces a serious work such as Wikipedia to a laughing stock. If people wish to read and learn they can go to the source we do not need to peddle this muck as well [[User:Archivist|Archivist]] 19:30, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
****The archived proposal and subsequent vote was only made last week. I do not see how people's attitudes have changed signficantly in the past week to conclude that the outcome might be different if we voted again.--[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*****There is at least one more delete vote (looks like more) so, yes, it is a different possible outcome. Are you suggesting that once voted an article is immune to any future reviews? A year from now it may be even clearer that this is fiction and should be deleted. We should be ready to review an article when necessary. If it keeps showing up on this page by people who have not reviewed it before it is a clearer indication that more and more people find it to be inappropriate for Wikipedia - [[User:Texture|Texture]] 22:15, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|||
******Just bad form to be relisting things so soon (space and time issues...). Sure, list in in a year. But given that the discussion just ended, the votes on that page still count. If we can delete after 5 days on refuse undeletion if all the rules were followed even if one or two nonvoters jump in to undelete, we can say the same for kept articles.--[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] |
|||
**Keep, considering I only just now discovered the page's existance because I was planning to create it if it hadn't been done already. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 02:43, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|||
**Keep. Significant crackpot theory based on the false premise that the [[cube]] is closely related to the number [[four]]. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 05:46, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|||
***Andrewa, you have not taken into account that the Time Cube ROTATES. Are you aware that all gravitational bodies (galaxies, stars, planets) originate from rotational vortices, and that their rotation causes dilation along their rotational axes? Imagine a Cube-like room rotating -- between the opposite parameters of Ceiling and Floor (like North and South poles), the 4 walls and 4 corners rotate; and in 1 rotation, each corner rotates through the other 3 corners before returning to its initial position. 4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations, in only 1 rotation; this 4/16 Rotation Principle constitutes absolute, unrefutable proof of 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth. |
|||
****I'd like to continue this conversation, but here isn't the place for it. Perhaps on my [[user talk:andrewa|user talk page]]? [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 03:34, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|||
**Keep. Crackpot, but nonetheless famous. Gene Ray and his theory have been the subject of numerous interviews, debates, and parodies. [[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] 14:49, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|||
**Keep. We need an archive of psudoscience in order to learn more about it and how to avoid falling into psudoscience / quackery traps in the future. Just make sure that the article states, as it already clearly does, that few if any scientists believe in this idea. [[User:ShaunMacPherson|ShaunMacPherson]] |
|||
**Keep, how many times do we have to vote on the same article? And besides, <font size=+1><b><i>ignorance of time cube is greatest evil. Invented word god and the stupid scientists recognize only a 1-day Earth rotation. Gene Ray is wiser than any god or scientist. </i></b></font> -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 01:22, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*** Outrageous, dude! Thanks for the good laugh. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 07:23, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|||
==VfD, January 2004== |
==VfD, January 2004== |
||
Latest revision as of 00:55, 26 November 2019
VfD, January 2004
[edit]- Detailed description of a theory that time is four-cornered. It is already mentioned at List of speculative or fringe theories (which is enough coverage IMO), and its creator's biography is at Gene Ray. Some people at 211.28.xxx.xxx (alias Mr. Ray, I would guess) have persistently spent months promoting this kookery on Wikipedia, and it's long been enough. Delete this, and preferably block 211.28.xxx.xxx as well. Kosebamse 11:35, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Make it a redirect to Gene Ray (again) and perhaps put a paragraph explaining the . . . theory . . . there. This is far too much article for one man's lunacy. — No-One Jones (talk) 11:57, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's widely known (if you follow such fringe things) ... and is adhered to by a limited group of ppl [I'm not one though]. Mabey a solution is to copy text over to the bio and redirect there. [it does need a intro prgh though] JDR
- A redirect would be more than enough - after all, Gene Ray is where all this comes from (see history of Gene Ray for 211.28.xxx.xxx contributions), and that page needs a lot of trimmimg, too. The fact that one particular nutter likes to elaborate his revelations in great detail is not sufficient reason for Wikipedia to incorporate all of it. Kosebamse 15:04, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Merge if needed, then redirect. - UtherSRG 15:33, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for cranks. Block 211.28.xxx.xxx & trim Gene Ray's bio down to a paragraph too. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:48, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- keep or merge, havent we been through this before? He's a famous crank. --Jiang
- Delete. Tinfoil hattery. Tempshill 20:17, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- take a look at related discussion at Talk:Gene_Ray#VfD listing. --Jiang
- Delete or Redirect at best. Ilyanep 23:27, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I find it both verifiable and informative. -- Cyan 00:27, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Cyan's comment. Kosebamse would like Wikipedians to believe that there is no conspiracy to suppress the Truth of Time Cube, yet in Truth his persistence has equalled mine in his efforts to prevent Cubic knowledge from spreading on Wikipedia. He also accuses me of being Gene Ray, which is untrue. Gene Ray lives in the USA, whereas I live in Australia, as should be evident from an IP trace. Obviously Kosebamse is trying to make people think that nobody other than the Greatest Thinker and Wisest Human supports Time Cube. As for the Time Cube article in question, the text in this article was written not by me but by the Wikipedian Olathe; I merely moved the text from the Gene Ray article where it was originally located, due to it being an explanation of the actual Time Cube theory rather than biographical data about Gene Ray. Apparently Olathe has read the Time Cube website and taken the time to write about it from an objective point of view, unlike people such as Kosebamse who automatically dismiss Time Cube as nonsense and Gene Ray as a lunatic, on the sole basis of their Academically indoctrinated biases. I think that Olathe's efforts reflect the true spirit of Wikipedia, and that deleting this article would not only waste his hard work, but would also equate to suppression of the objective representation of alternative viewpoints. And Time Cube is a widely known, if not widely accepted theory, as can easily be determined by googling '"Time Cube" OR "Timecube"'. So let's not give in to prejudice and the Academian propaganda of such users as Kosebamse; rather, let's accept that different people have different opinions, and that Wikipedia should represent all well-known viewpoints, regardless of whether said viewpoints contradict Academian dogma. After all, other popular websites have their own Wikipedia articles, don't they?
- I think keep, but watch the POV. It *is* tinfoil-hattery, but it seems to be somewhat famous tinfoil-hattery. We have articles on all sorts of strange beliefs, rightly in my opinion. As long as the article says that many of us think it's bunk, it belongs here. moink 04:02, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, it's famous. silsor 04:10, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Likely to be a permanent battlefield, and should be merged with Gene Ray and made a redirect IMO. But none of that is any reason to delete under current policies. Andrewa 20:03, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Internet phenomenon. - Hephaestos 00:27, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's famous enough. Angela. 04:18, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Of course it's kookery, but since TimeCube.com is a very popular website and people like to laugh at/with Gene Ray, I think there should be a page on the theory presented there. Don't forget, the Time Cube theory was debated at MIT some time back, so even though it's utter crankness, it has gotten attention.Crculver 04:35, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Much as I'm scared to admit it, the "I agree w/ Cyan" poster has a good point. Meelar 02:31, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. – Olathe 04:15, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect.--Sean 05:44, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
VfD, January 2004
[edit]Quoted from Talk:Time Cube:
- This article was listed for deletion on 26 April, 2005. The discussion was closed with the result of keep. This article will not be deleted. You can view the discussion, which is no longer live: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (3rd nomination). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)