Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Bryanton

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Bryanton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as a composer or an author. His one book and website are also non-notable. The article was originally poorly written and read like an ad, when I removed all the unsourced claims there was very little left. Pwrong (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is copied from the talk page

Whatever your opinion of this man's ideas are, he's certainly gotten some attention, so it seems pointless not to document him. Even if he is a pseudoscientist, there's still an article about Time Cube. And a neutrally-written one, at that. Zacqary Adam Green (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Time Cube has several independent references and sources. The time cube guy is much more notable, probably because it's funny. Bryanton's ideas aren't funny or even that interesting, just wrong.Pwrong (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He may fail to meet the criteria of WP:NP and WP:BIO, but as those articles state, they aren't extremely hard rules. I think that, with one million plus results for his book on Google, he seems far more than notable enough to have his own article. Wikipedia isn't simply an abstract set of rules to be followed at all costs; it's a knowledge base, and if knowledge of Bryanton's understanding of physics (or lack there of) can be generally benificial to those interested in the topic the page should stay.

Also, Plankhead, I completely forgot about Time Cube. Thanks for reminding me of it, thus causing me to revist the site, thus making me that much stupider. 8bit (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The million hits for "imagining the tenth dimension" are almost all about his video. You could possibly make an argument for it being notable as a viral video, but that wouldn't necessarily justify an article about its creator, especially one without reliable sources.Pwrong (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He hasn't got that much attention. If he had then someone would be able to produce information about him from reliable sources. The reason we can't find a source for his ideas being wrong is that no reliable sources have bothered to debunk him (or say anything else about him). Whether he's right or wrong is irrelevant, he hasn't got any attention from the media or from scientists. Nearly everything written about him is written by the man himself.Pwrong (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Pwrong is correct that Bryanton and his ideas haven't gotten much attention other than blogs linking to his video. While the comments thread on this BoingBoing entry might constitute written analysis of his ideas, it's still just a comments thread. That said, judging by the tone of some of Pwong's prior edits to the article, he seems to have a bias against Bryanton in general. I'm now undecided on whether this should be deleted or not, but I'm not sure Pwrong is the best person to make that decision. Zacqary Adam Green (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I'm not the best person to make the call. That's why we have these AfD pages and it's why I'm a bit disappointed with the lack of response. My bias results from being a maths honours student who has been interested in dimensions and string theory for a long time. Bryanton's video has annoyed me for years simply because he gets things wrong at almost every step. I've never seen such a poor interpretation of string theory. However the reasons the article should be deleted are different from my own motivations. As I've said, his musical work, video and book are not notable and there are no reliable sources except IMBb. Pwrong (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.