Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
AfDs for this article:
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 keep. Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time Cube

[edit]
For the January 2004 and February 2004 prior VFD discussions of this article, see Talk:Time Cube/Delete.

Patent nonsense. Not only is it an article about fringe original research, but at least one of its anonymous proponants has been using it as a platform to insert Time Cube nonsense into other sensible and useful articles like Greenwich Mean Time. Consider this image caption: "The unique harmonicity of the 4-corner quadrant division proves the supremacy of the number four." This is not encyclopaedic. Evertype 10:51, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

  • Keep I'm impressed that somebody took the time to read and could actually construct a coherent summary of it.
  • Comment There have been many votes to keep with a clean up to better reflect Time Cube as an internet phenomenon and remove the "original research" in line with Wikipedia. I have attempted such a clean up which has significantly slimmed the article. Could anyone seeking a clean up of the article please review my version and edit or expand on it as necessary. Thanks. Cheradenine 22:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, has a cult following. VfD is not vandalism control. Gazpacho 11:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I will admit, though, that 90% of the article violates the original research policy. The article ought to be about a funny web site, not the secrets of the universe. Gazpacho
  • Keep! We must not allow Evertype's obscurantist agenda to silence the Cubic Truth of the Universe. Time Cube is a well-known theory, with Gene Ray having guest-lectured to packed lecture-theatres of university students at MIT in January 2002, and again at Georgia Tech just two weeks ago. Furthermore, the Time Cube article in question is a well-established one, containing many useful contributions by various users and having also previously withstood the VFD test not once, but twice. I urge other users to stand with me on this and to thus prevent their children or great-grandchildren from resorting to cannibalism in future 4/16 rotations of Earth. Time is Cubic, not Linear, and 4 is the Supreme Number of the Universe. You Must Seek Time Cube! 211.28.114.30 12:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This is, surprisingly, the user's first edit. --Calton | Talk 02:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Gene hasn't yet used all 65536 possible IP addresses in that range. See below. Uncle G 23:55, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
        • To my knowledge, Gene hasn't used any of them at all. See below. 211.28.24.43 08:42, 2005 Apr 28 (according to history Uncle G 09:33, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC))
  • Delete. Borders on patent nonsense, notability not established. Martg76 12:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ignore the trolls and vandals; this is a well-known web phenomenon. Gene Ray was invited to speak at MIT on his "theories." android↔talk 12:39, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • ... and clean up. Concur with Gazpacho; the article needs to be more about Time Cube as a web phenomenon and less about the actual "research," perhaps with just a summary of the claims rather than a blow-by-blow analysis. android↔talk 12:50, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, even though people will probably find this theory laughable in all, um, corners of the planet. (Or should that be all quarters?) Grutness|hello? 12:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gene Ray is a notable Internet crank; however, for his Time Cube theory, Wikipedia:No original research should apply here as it does anywhere else. Move it to Wikibooks, or redirect to Gene Ray, or drastically alter the article to talk about the Internet phenomenon and not the original research (which could just as well be done by redirecting to Gene Ray). We have an article about Sollog, but no long separate article on "Sollog Theory"; why would this be different? -- Curps 13:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Gene Ray. There is enough about the time cube theory in the Gene Ray article; we don't need to expound every deranged detail. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep in the strongest possible terms. Here are archives of the past two times this article has been nominated for deletion and kept. There has to be an end of this sometime. -- Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps there will be, when this crap is deleted. I can't imagine anyone with serious NPOV "fixing" this monstrosity. Evertype 17:37, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Delete as lawful stupid. DS 15:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) ...whoa. I am impressed by the work Nunh-huh have done in fixing what I thought was an inherently unsalvageable article. Keep, I guess, as long as it stays a neutral article that doesn't try to propagate Gene Ray's schizophrenic glossolalia. This may require protecting the article.DS 13:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and Keep Someone needs to take a hatchet to the text. It's wrong in so many ways. Anilocra 15:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • A well-known Internet phenomenon. Keep, but trim drastically - at the moment it is a promotional of crackpottery. Alternately, merge some of the contents to Gene Ray, and redirect. - Mike Rosoft 16:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe that the trimming has gone a bit too far. If this is to be the final version, it should be merged to Gene Ray. (And, please, keep the pictures, so that they can be preserved on BJAODN.) - Mike Rosoft 19:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (because of previous VfDs). Do a cleanup (it is way too big and too hard to read). Block the 211.28.xxxx vandalizing Greenwich Mean Time and related articles. Pavel Vozenilek 16:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete patent nonsense. Ben-w
  • Keep -- and rewrite. - Longhair | Talk 17:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You volunteering to rewrite it? Good for you! Evertype 17:41, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
      • Comment: Keep and cleanup is a perfectly legitimate vote, even if the voter is unwilling and/or unable to do the rewrite. Please don't disparage it. Meelar (talk) 20:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: No, I'm voting on keeping the article, and suggesting a rewrite. I'd heard of Time Cube long before I'd heard of Wikipedia. This site has gained some notoriety, even if the content is considered a notch above or below crankworthy. If I had the time or inclination to rewrite the article, I'd have done so. As is stands, I'm simply letting others know I feel it's worth keeping, once improved. From there, the community can muster up all the improvements it likes. I never said I'd come back to visit the article at all. -- Longhair | Talk 06:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - or shorten it down very much so only essence would remain and thus removing original research.DeirYassin 18:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Gene Ray. Average Earthman 18:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up this article about some very orginal research. Kappa 19:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, but maybe shorten Only because this poor, sorry soul and his bizzare ramblings have developed a cult following ('Cult' as it would apply to the Rocky Horror Picture Show, btw) Roodog2k 19:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and let people know on WP:AN/I if this guy starts getting too frisky with the reverts on the Greenwich or other articles. No reason to let this crank violate the 3RR and endanger legitimate articles. Vfd is not vandal control. Meelar (talk) 20:19, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. While the article as it currently stands is by no means an ideal article (or even a decent one), Time Cube is definitely a worthy topic for inclusion within Wikipedia. Definitely needs to be cleaned up. R Calvete 21:18, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very well-known internet kookery, gets 22,000+ Google hits. --Carnildo 22:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No original opinions. -- Kizor 22:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Gene Ray. —Ashley Y 23:28, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Merge perhaps a few sentences to Gene Ray, if that article doesn't already have everything important about this nonsense. CDC (talk) 23:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Highly informative article with a lot of references. A lot of time was put into creating this useful article. --Timecop 01:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User has 25 edits.
      • (Removed personal attack by Timecop.)
  • Keep an eye on it for vandals (to other articles). It might be nonsence, but people believe it. humblefool® 23:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Time Cube is maybe the best known "Internet crank" in existence. Definitely encyclopedic. Nightwatch 00:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Time Cube kicks ass. AngryParsley 01:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gene Ray kicks ass. Shltping 01:30, 2005 Apr 27 (according to history Uncle G 23:55, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC))
  • Keep. We rightly have an article on Flat Earth Society, and we should similarly have an article on this and other popular crank theories.--Gene_poole 02:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent nonsense. -- Dave C. 02:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Gene Ray. Tannin 02:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Gene Ray. Nonsensical original "research" Josh Cherry 04:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notoriety and notability. Megan1967 04:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and add a disclaimer at the top. All such bullshit articles need a proper disclaimer. 05:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) 69.106.186.1 05:22, 2005 Apr 27 (according to history Uncle G 23:55, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC))
    • Anon votes are generally discounted on VfD.
  • Keep. Needing cleanup is not reason to delete a valid encyclopedic article. Time Cube is kook science, but it is notable, well-known and oft-reported kook science. (Or maybe I have been educated stupid...) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable XmarkX 06:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Time Cube is a cute webpage, but not that notable an covered by the Gene_Ray article which is the sensible place. Make it a redirect to Gene_Ray if you need to keep it. 65.95.133.197 07:01, 2005 Apr 27 (according to history Uncle G 23:55, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC))
  • Keep but with reservations, nedds some serious cleanup, puls addtional views from outside sources on the subject, ie to why it would not be pratical from some kegit sources, if any would be nice. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Vote Withdrawn
  • If this cannot be cleaned up, delete. But the topic clearly is worth an article, this article just is not good enough. --Jannex 07:07, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. --SPUI (talk) 07:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I smell a sock. Nevertheless this seems a notable enough hoax to be kept, but requires heavy cleanup. Radiant_* 09:31, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep GNAA Popeye 14:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Completely noteable. I've seen Ray on Tech Tv. Even if the Timecube theory is fringe and quack physics, it still is a noteable theory in that it is popular. An encylopedia's purpose is to provide a summary of a certain noteable piece of information, and this article does that. --vetta2
  • Keep but cleanup. Sam Hocevar 14:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Cleanup I know many here simply want the page to be cleaned up, but I suggest those people read the archived discussion. There is someone who apparently has vast amounts of time on there hands, who will fight any attempted cleanup at all turns. This page has been edited away from a page about Gene Ray's Time Cube website into a troll for parody sites like CubicAO, and it will stay that way without considerable devoted attention from someone. I suggest that unless you personally are willing to cleanup and maintain the cleaned up page, that you vote for the practical choice under the circumstances. Cheradenine 16:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The practical choice is to allow the article's NPOV to remain, and not make baseless accusations of auxiliary sites being parodies and other such prejudiced remarks. Maybe you're talking about the choice that is practical for censoring Truth and forcing Academian beliefs upon readers.
      Note that Cheradenine has only 10 edits total. 211.28.24.43 08:42, 2005 Apr 28 (according to history Uncle G 09:33, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC))
  • Strong Keep but cleanup. We'd be lax not to have this. --Badlydrawnjeff 17:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and Evertype needs a new hobby. His persistence in banning Time Cube from Wikipedia is beyond reasonable. Methinks he doth protest too much. Franc28 17:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Err, Evertype is only responsible for this VfD, not the previous two. Seems like a perfectly reasonable action to me. android↔talk 00:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reminds me of Sollog. We have no article for his "Temple of Hayah," but that is not nearly as discussed as this "time-cube" seems to be. As long as it's a fair article and not a fanboy piece or a hatchet job, keep. The Sollog article is an example that shows this can be accomplished even with articles dealing with people who apparently have not been taking their meds regularly. A2Kafir 23:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If you look at the (long) edit histories of this article and of Gene Ray, and the comments on the talk pages, you'll find that several editors share the suspicion that 211.28.*.* is the dynamically-assigned IP address range that Gene Ray himself uses. For the months prior to this article coming up for VFD (for the third time), many edits to these two articles have followed a pattern: Gene would edit the article from a 211.28.*.* IP address, and another editor would then either neutralize or revert the added content. Interestingly, it was Gene himself who removed the first VFD notice on 2004-02-01. Uncle G 23:55, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
    • Uncle G, why is it that you are engaging in unfounded "ad hominem" attacks instead of addressing the actual content of the articles? As I have pointed out many times, I am not Gene Ray; and it seems to me that contrary to the conduct that should be adopted by a useful and productive Wikipedia user, you are intent on taking sides and fighting against users whom you dislike. This results in the quality of the actual content being overlooked and compromised. Again, you need to focus less on conspiracy theories against users such as myself, and more on the actual content of Wikipedia articles. 211.28.24.43 08:42, 2005 Apr 28 (according to history Uncle G 09:33, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC))
    • Comment as far as I can tell (reading he archived discussions etc.) 211.28.*.* is not Gene Ray, but rather the author of the parody/troll site CubicAO. Read any of the interviews with Gene Ray and this ought to be clear. Effectively this Wikipedia page has been overtaken by trolls who are using it to promote their own parody/troll site for their own amusement. Anyone who cares to read the discussion page and use the Wayback machine can trace the development of this particular trolling effort. I've attempted to clean up the article. Please edit or extend, or at the least drop a word of support for the edits into the discussion page. Cheers. Cheradenine 00:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Cheradenine, CubicAO is a serious site; and if you have legitimate objections to the content of article Time Cube, you will need to explain the specific flaws, rather than making up conspiracy theories about the writers being trolls. 211.28.24.43 08:42, 2005 Apr 28 (according to history Uncle G 09:33, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC))
  • Keep, but only if we all pitch in and maintain an encyclopedic, cleaned-up verison. Mgw 08:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: 211.28.24.43 [Gene?] has already started the edit war over the cleaned up version by Cheradenine. It would be helpful if those of you who voted to keep but clean up could help maintain a reasonable version of this page until this anonymous troll looses interest. Mgw 09:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "started"? It has been going on for over a year. Speaking as one of the editors who has from time to time over the past months neutralized or fixed 211.28.*.* modifications to Time Cube[1] and to Gene Ray [2][3], I think that it is highly probable that 211.28.*.* will not lose interest. Xe has, after all, been doing this (adding text which has to be neutralized, reverting other editors' changes to xyr own version with edit comments claiming it to be the "NPOV" one, accusing a wide range of other editors of "POV" and "ad hominem attacks" on talk pages) since at least January 2004 (where 211.28.*.* was even then commented upon in the VFD discussion). In fact, xe has outlasted at least one editor (Talk:Gene Ray#It.27s_hopeless). Xe is the reason that Coordinated Universal Time, Greenwich Mean Time, and Time zone are all currently protected (WP:AN/I#Time_Cube_vandalism). Talk:Gene Ray and Talk:Time Cube are still listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, by the way. Uncle G 10:37, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
  • keep. Time cube is an exemplary crank page (I ought to get round to adding time cube to slashdot subculture) and by definition worthy of note. Of course, we ought to be vigilant about maintaining NPOV here.
  • Strong Keep - While Time Cube is kookery, it is extremely famous kookery. Just because it attact trolls does not detract from its fame and consequential notability. --Bletch 15:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Clean up and Keep I think the clean up that's been done is good, and as long as there is a good watch set on the article to keep trolls from messing it up again it is worth keeping. 129.100.75.73 17:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect to Gene Ray. Notable kookery. -Sean Curtin 00:59, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious and strong keep Definatly notable enough. Two previous VFDs people! Gkhan 02:49, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, very relucantly, but only if the article is made much shorter. Gene Ray is a notable crank, but the article is far too long relative to the very minimal importance of his kookery. Quale 05:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Why? Are we running out of paper or something? If the article is kept then I don't see why it should be made shorter.
  • Keep: The article was repaired nicely and should be kept.
  • After reading the article, I still have no idea what the damn thing is, other than some sort of website with some unusual content. Gzuckier 23:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as an article on a kooky website (Category:Internet culture, not Category:Pseudo-science). dab (ᛏ) 08:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep already survived two vfds, let it rest. N-Mantalk 09:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let it rot, uh... rest. Phils 10:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, you must establish a Chair of Wisdom to empower Wise Men over the stupid intelligentsia, or perish. --iMb~Meow 12:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Famous internet crank. If this deletion request is according to deletion policy, then deletion policy needs fixing - David Gerard 19:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very notable on the Internet. A distinction needs to be made between whether an article is patent nonsense or the article's subject is patent nonsense. Bryan 15:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brookie:the wind in the grass 19:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as trolltrap -- I don't put out a baited mousetrap because I want to attract mice to my house; but I do want to attract mice in my house to the trap. — Xiong熊talk* 07:47, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
  • Keep However Gene Ray is wrong, Time is actually triangular. And I can prove that. Klonimus 08:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Keep Gene Ray is my hero.
  • Keep I may not have an account, but i agree on keeping this!
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Time_Cube_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1138873242"