Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (6th nomination)

:{{la|Time Cube}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (6th nomination)}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Time Cube}})

This fringe website doesn't seem to have received sufficient coverage in reliable, third-party sources to establish sufficient notability per WP:WEB. *** Crotalus *** 17:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, per arguments presented in the gazillion previous nominations. Both the website and the theory(?) has received considerable attention. For instance, there's a peer-reviewed article by Bei Dawei, and it has been the topic of public panel discussions at MIT and Georgia Tech. Serious disgrace that an article can be nominated again and again, apparently for the same reason. The AfD process is not perfect, hence a miscarriage of justice is bound to happen if such frivolous repeated nominations are allowed. Woseph (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Obvious keep - While the site is finge, it's notable both in the degree of its "fringeness" and the fact that this has allowed it to become quite possibly the archetypal fringe site on the Internet. Both the article and the site it describes have become the go-to references of what fringe sites so often look like. – ClockworkSoul 18:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. A time must come for closure, and no new arguments are presented, nor is there any credible claim that consensus might have changed. This has been repetitiously renominated since 2004 at least, always with the result that the page is kept. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep- Notability firmly established. Repeated nominations will not change this, and there is no other pressing reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. It is reasonably notable if you search on "timecube.com" to avoid other things with similar names. A Google Books search shows that it is in the 2001 and 2003 editions of The rough guide to the Internet‎. It also gets a footnote mention in an academic paper (as an example of sources not to use as references if you value your credibility)[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1525619] and a smattering of news coverage in the Google News archive. Its not a huge amount but I think it is enough to keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep one of very few goofy internet memes which genuinely and truly has significant reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per above. See also WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ODD, and WP:CCC: longstanding consensus is that this is a notable freaky freaking freak. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. A fringe theory, certainly-- very fringe; I'm not sure if anyone other than Gene Ray even "understands" it. But a famous (or notorious) fringe theory. As long as Wikipedia considers any aspect of internet culture or internet memes to be within project scope, Time Cube remains on in the select top of the short list from benifit of its long term legs over about a decade and a half. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Castle Keep, for reasons already given above. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Castle keep? As in "stronger than strong"? I've never seen this before :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• You got it. I'm so punny, har har! Kittensandrainbows (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and also close early per WP:SNOW --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 04:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, notable kook idea, several citations in mainstream peer-reviewed publications as an example of the genre. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Petition to rename this proposal "Time Cube (cubic nomination)" in honour of our hero, Dr Ray. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. There are 3 other AfDs for this article, all which resulted in keep. I just compared the current version to what it was when deletion was proposed last time and not much seems different. It seems disrespectful to ignore those previous discussions unless something has changed significantly since then, which doesn't seem to be the case with this one. Svenna (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. Together with the unanimous "keeps" on this one, I support any admin closing this as a speedy keep as already proposed multiple times. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2010 (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.