Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:10, 27 April 2005

Time Cube

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, 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)
• 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| 12:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gene Ray is a notable Internet crank; however, for his Time Cube theory, Misplaced Pages: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)
• 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.
    • Whoever took the time to look this up has a tiny penis.
• 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.
  • Anon votes are generally discounted on VfD.
• 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)
  • 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.
• 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)
• 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)