Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (4th nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. Merging, cleanup, etc. might be an option to discuss elsewhere, but there obviously no consensus to delete this. — CharlotteWebb 18:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time Cube

edit

This has previously been debated for deletion a couple of times and kept (see Talk:Time Cube/Delete), but I would like to revisit it, not least in the light of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aetherometry (second nomination). What we have here is presented as a scientific theory, which it clearly is not. No scientific theory can possibly claim as immutable fact that pi=3.20. Because it is so patently absurd it has not been discussed in any reputable peer-reviewed journals, which makes it pretty close to impossible to balance the absurdity without venturing into original research. There is no doubt that the idea has a certain degree of notability, but the theory itself is simply unsupported by any credible peer-reviewed evidence, so is fundamentally unverifiable. What we can verify is that Gene Ray expounds this twaddle, and we can and should document it at Gene Ray, but not here.

Obviously redirection is an editorial action which requires no Super PowersTM, but I don't want to just do that, I want to stimulate a proper debate on the issue and hopefully achieve a consensus view that this subject is one we cannot cover separately, which would ensure that we don't have to have the same debate again in a month form now. Guy 13:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"JzG" and/or "Guy", see the following link, [1], for a peer-reviewed Academic journal contribution discussing Time Cube. Yes, it's been published in a university academic journal, and was peer-reviewed. So already, we're seeing how much of a monumental, massive and important theory Time Cube really is.
That's not a serious academic article. Bwithh 17:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except it isn't. It's about a theory - Time Cube is the proposition that time is cubic. Why else would it go into detail about why the theory is wrong? See the problem? Guy 14:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use AfD for content disputes. The web site and the "theory" are notable and encyclopedic (even being presented at universities). If you have an issue with how the article is presented, discuss it on the talk page, not here. This AfD is inappropriate and should be closed. — Omegatron 14:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's here because I think there should be no article with this title. That is a proper matter for AfD to decide. Merge and redirect is also a valid outcome of an AfD debate. Guy 15:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think an article specifically covering the Time Cube as a website would be a clear delete per WP:WEB. It's as a theory or meme that I'm still undecided about the notability. If anything the website is only notable as media tied to what is possibly a notable crackpot theory.--Isotope23 00:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Agree, this article is less about the website (which I don't see any evidence it meets WP:WEB anyway) than about the theory itself. The question here really is, it a theory that nearly every legitimate researcher and academic discounts to the point of virtually ignoring it notable as a theory? How about as a meme if the theory has been roundly parodied and ridiculed? No opinion yet, but if this was just about the website I would say the article is eminently more deletable per WP:WEB than if it is considered as the theory being a meme.--Isotope23 14:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, exactly. It's almost impossible to work out fomr the article exactly what we're claiming it is, or its claim to notability might therefore be. A redirect to Gene Ray would at lest have the virtue of making it unambiguously clear that this is about one man's absurd theory and the ridicule (and flying-spaghetti-monster stylee popularity) it has attracted. Guy 15:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the theory is ludicrous. So what? That doesn't make it any less deserving of an article. — Omegatron 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but the fact that the article doesn't comply with Wiki guidelines for original research does. -- Moondigger 17:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well to that I would say it is not deserving of an article unless there are enough notable sources to establish it as a well known crackpot theory. I'm less concerned with if it is factual or not and more concerned with if it is notable. The website itself fails WP:WEB pretty roundly with most of the references to it in non-WP:RS blogs. I'm still undecided about the notability of the theory itself though. If kept this article needs a good hard whack with the no original research stick.--Isotope23 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probable keep We don't delete articles about theories just because they're wrong, or even because they're too incoherent to figure out what the theory even is. If this, for lack of a better word, idea, has a following, and is discussed apart from the person of Gene Ray, than it's plausible to have an article about it. (I don't really know whether it does have a following, which is why I said "probable".) --Trovatore 15:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The vast majority of the article constitutes original research, and as such does not meet Wikipedia standards. What little content exists that doesn't amount to original research can be included in the article (or a section of the article) about Gene Ray. -- Moondigger 15:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I agree with Trovatore's arguments, except that I see little evidence of a following. As a website, it doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. As for the argument that it's presented at universities: this was following an invitation of students, and I quite see university students invite some weird guy for all sorts of reasons (to brag about it, to practise debating, for entertainment). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, AfD is not for content disputes. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 16:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. An article about the website, which is notorious, I had heard of it and seen it long before coming to Wikipedia, is necessarily going to get mixed up with the crank theory that the site serves to promote. This is the fourth AfD for the article, and there comes a time to give up. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep I have rewritten the artice to be aboute a notable website, as opposed to a non-notable theory. JBKramer 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Delete unverifiable in current form. Needs to start from scratch. JBKramer 17:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Subject is notable on the net, although no one has really written anything serious about it which makes the article imposible to comply with WP policies.Tranqulizer 17:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which therefore means it should be deleted, not kept. The difficulty of adherence to Wiki policy is not a valid reason to keep such articles. -- Moondigger 17:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I will admit my reason for voting keep has more to do with my own interest in the subject than any objective atempt to follow WP policies. I agree with the delete camp's argument that if policies are to be followed strictly the article should be deleted. However I urge people to consider the amount of work that has gone into the current version of the article and that it has survived AFD before. I hope a consensus can be reached.Tranqulizer 18:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The amount of work that has gone into this article isn't really something that justifies its existance. I've seen some wonderful pieces of original research that obviously took the author(s) a considerable amount of time to create. It's a shame to have to delete something that people spent a considerable amount of time on, but if an article does not (and cannot) meet relevant policies and guidelines then it has no place here no matter how much work went into it.--Isotope23 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • They're not policies, by the way; they're guidelines. We can decide to keep it even if it doesn't meet WP:WEB. — Omegatron 21:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was speaking in a general sense about policies and guidelines; point being that time spent on an article isn't a reason to keep it. Of course guidelines can be ignored but personally I need to see a compelling reason why a subject should be given a pass on the relevant guideline (i.e. how does it benefit the Wikipedia project to ignore the guideline and retain a specific article).--Isotope23 00:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. I wrote my "probable keep" above before going to the website. As far as I can tell, there's no theory at all, not even an obviously false or obviously meaningless one. That is, there is no exposition, no argument, no explanation, just a stream of apparently disconnected one-liners. The article gives the impression that there's a collection of unifying ideas that connect things together, but if there is, it doesn't seem to be on the first page of the website; it seems that the authors of the WP article must have done a bit more synthesis than is really permitted, unless there's another source somewhere. That said, if it's a notable phenomenon it should be kept. --Trovatore 18:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely notable, though it was most prominent before Wikipedia's time, making it a little harder to find references. If you think there's too much original research, it needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. — Omegatron 21:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete/redirect to Gene Ray (possible very cut down merge) When I was at MIT, some people invited [Gene Ray to give a lecture on his "Time Cube" idea]. I hadn't really heard of it before but some people I knew were going and said it would be funny, so I went along out of curiousity. The whole event was basically Gene talking about his ideas and a crowded auditorium of MIT students (and a few profs) laughing at him and asking him smartass obviously mocking questions for 50 mins. Gene just didn't seem to be aware at all that people were laughing at him and treating him as a freakshow event (I mean, he was invited by MIT students who fully intended in advance that he would be an object of derision). This was not a high point in MIT culture. The whole thing event made me uncomfortable. Schizophrenia is a very broad, vague, contested and perhaps not so useful term but Gene clearly had some problems in that general area. (and his "unique" website style is not so unique. There are other sites on the web where people with apparently similar problems post totally incoherent rants/conspiracy theories/crank ideas in a similar strange website format style... it seems to be something of a symptom.). My problem with this article is that I can't see any purpose to laying out Gene Ray's Time Cube ideas in such detail except to mock someone who may well need professional mental health help. Gene Ray / Time Cube may be widely known (okay, so keep the Gene Ray article), but what's the seemly, non-smirking purpose for this kind of detailed exploration? Bwithh 21:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's sad, but even if he's completely sincere in his "theories", "protecting" the mentally ill is not a good reason to delete an article about a notable subject. If you think it needs to be cleaned up, recommend that it be cleaned up. — Omegatron 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already pointed out that Gene Ray already has his own article, which I have not suggested should be deleted. Time Cube can be (and is) mentioned in that article. Fine, if its widely known enough. What I'm saying is that the Time Cub e article seems to have no encyclopedic value and seems to exist merely to mock Gene Ray's ravings. This is not an "educational" article, its a mockery. Bwithh 00:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for him, Gene Ray doesn't understand the joke Bwithh 21:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Plus, the FSM si clearlyt intended to be a joke and is described as such. Guy 22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering what publicity you are refering to. Could you please clarify? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Jitse Niesen", Time Cube has been debated on two separate occasions at two separate universities: MIT in 2002, and Georgia Tech in 2005. In 2003, Dr Ray was interviewed on TechTV's "Unscrewed" television programme, hosted by Martin Sargent. He has been interviewed on numerous Internet radio programs, including FreeTalkLive, RantRadio, RadioKOL, EYada (now defunct), and he was interviewed about one day ago, I take it, on a New York "WHRW-FM" radio channel, on a show hosted by one Charles Berman. TimeCube.com has been mentioned on a vast quantity of websites, as a Google-search will reveal. An Academic paper was written on the subject of Time Cube by a Taiwanese university student, Bei Dawei. In short, there has been a huge quantity of publicity. So yeah, that's the publicity.
The MIT lecture (and I suspect the Georgia Tech lecture and these other "publicity" events) as well was not a "debate". It was a freakshow. Bwithh 12:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of wether he made a fool of himself it was still publicity.Tranqulizer 16:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"huge quantity of publicity" is abit over the top. But yeah, I agree that there is enough publicity for an article on wp. Tranqulizer 12:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a widely renowned bit of Internet crankery, not a scientific theory. Trying to evaluate it as an article about a scientific theory isn't meaningful. There are far less prominent websites with articles of their own, I see no reason why this one shouldn't have one. Bryan 01:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Notable internet crankery. Joshua Nicholson 01:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High Weirdness by Wikipedia. Notable crank theory, someday I hope Time Cube can give me immortality so I can visit the pyramids on Mars. SchmuckyTheCat 05:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Gene Ray. Even assuming arguendo that the crank theory as such is notable, the article does not conclusively indicate that the website, which is the subject of the article, meets WP:WEB. We shouldn't keep it as an article on the theory, either, because the bulk of the article is an unsourced synthesis of the theory, meriting deletion per WP:NOR. What remains can be merged to Gene Ray, if deemed necessary. Sandstein 07:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge-and-redirect is incompatible with delete for GFDL reasons - we need to maintian the article history as attribution if we keep the material within it. Which do you mean? Bryan 08:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, I assumed a reference to the original article in the merging edit summary would do, as the exact article history is recoverable in the unlikely case of an actual copyright dispute. If this contradicts established GFDL wisdom, just redirect. Sandstein 09:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Crank, maybe; famous crank, definitely, practically a household name in web-meme circles. AfD Is Not Cleanup™®©. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment Well, if we're going to have junk pages like shock site (currently up for deletion as well), might as well have junk pages like this one. Can't have it both ways, friends. Word to the wise: You want one, you also get the others as well. metaspheres 20:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia works on principle of "unless you create an article that's clearly not a remarkable idea, you can create any article you want; however, the notability will be determined later and if it's found lacking, the article will be deleted." Nothing, apart of speedy criteria, suggest AfDs set strong precedents. AfDs are always case-by-case, even when we have guidelines. And specifically, in this case, I fail to see how the notability of the topic of shock sites has any bearing to case of Time Cube. Are you suggesting Time Cube is a shock site and these two AfDs are, thus, somehow related? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should read my comments there to understand my argument (which is why I provided the link.) These types of articles share one thing in common - they are essentially useless information. They don't educate or inform or increase our understanding of the world or existence. In other words, they don't fulfill the aim of an encyclopedia. If you and others argue that Wikipedia is not to be compared to a traditional encyclopedia (i.e. Britannica), then you know what? Wikipedia should stop promoting itself as an encyclopedia and simply refer to itself as a "knowledge base" or "information repository" or something along those lines. Every time Jimbo gets out there and gives a lecture on Wikipedia, he promotes his vision which clearly defines Wikipedia as a potential competitor to traditional print encyclopedias. This promotional campaign, spread by word of mouth and the media, has been so successful that most people come to this site expecting a free alternative to Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia. For heavens sake, Jimbo talks about a print version of Wikipedia that can be given to every single child in Africa and other poor regions. Again, this is the man who started this thing in the first place. Most people here seem to agree with Jimbo, otherwise they wouldn't be contributing. And yet why is it that most people refuse to take a stand when it comes to defending this vision, so that Wikipedia does not degenerate into a useless repository of junk and pop culture? Yes, Time Cube is junk. This article is junk. "Shock site" is junk, and so are many, many, many other articles here that do nothing to add to human knowledge, but like television, have only the effect of numbing the brain and lowering peoples' IQ. It would be better and more informative for people to watch a full 24 hours of Fox News than to spend only a single hour to wade through these crap articles. Again, if anyone cares about the competency and legitimacy of this project, especially it's credibility factor in the light of so many attacks in recent times, then this will require more stringent guidelines and factors for inclusion. It will have to happen at some point, otherwise Wikipedia will no longer be able to gain enough financial support to survive. Remember, Wikipedia relies on donations, and if Wikipedia is no longer fulfilling the aims outlined in it's mission statement, people will cease to support it with their hard-earned cash. metaspheres 15:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... I have a lot of sympathy for Metaspheres' views, even if I don't share his conclusions (maybe in a year or two, depending on what happens to WP) Bwithh 17:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I get what you mean; I have a little bit of hard time generalising it. In fact, I have a little bit of hard time generalising my counterargument. Here's my counterargument in its purest, unedited form: "One man's junk is another's treasure!" and "where exactly do you draw line between junk and factoids that are interesting in some contexts?" ... My problem when generalising your argument is this: Yes, trimming stuff no one is ever interested about is important. I just don't see how it applies to "shock site" or "Time Cube", as those are probably within realm of topics that are, marginally, worth discussing. My problem generalising my counterargument is this: I'm not utterly comfortable defending these two articles vigorously, and admit they're on the very boundary between plausible and not plausible. All I'm saying is this: WP:UA is an example of Wikipedia's strengths. Wikipedia's strength is that we can cover a little bit more eccentric topics. "Eccentric" can not only mean "a bit unusual choice for a topic", but it will also mean "information about computer topics that isn't 3-4 years out of date". (If the "real" encyclopaedias ignore the "worthless" net culture topics, exactly how the heck do they cover it at all?) Sometimes the topic is a bit fuzzy one. It's entirely different matter whether or not that stuff is junk or not. In closing: I concur that Time Cube or shock sites could be discussed elsewhere, in some other article, as a section or something; I disagree that they'd be entirely worthless topics to cover. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or fundamentally restructure with stronger documentation. There are two cases which would justify an article on this topic under the guidelines. First, the "theory" could meet verifiability (and other requirements) in and of itself. There does not seem to be a strong sense that this is the case; the theory is known because of the author. The argument for deletion or merger in that regard is the same that finally prevailed in the CTMU debacle. Alternatively, an article could meet WP standards by being about the website itself, under the WP:WEB requirements. This article does not appear to meet those obligations: it is a long article focused on the content of the site (including a substantial list of claims that amounts to little more than contextless quotes). The given references are directed towards the site's content and its creator, not towards the site in and of itself. If there has been appropriate independant coverage of the site, cleanup and document accordingly. If not, follow CTMU precendent and delete (or merge, if determined desirable). Serpent's Choice 04:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's exactly the point. The theory is unverifiable, but any attempt to remove the theory and discuss only the website is apparently reverted by the time cubers. The website's notability is sufficiewntly borderline that I would merge and redirect to Gene Ray, but delete and redirect is an option as is keep in a wholly different form, with credible references to support the popularity of the website as a website (absent right now). At the moment it's "keep the non-notable website, it's a notable theory" and "keep the unverifiable theory, it's a notable website", but I have yet to see the evidence of this being the primary focus of mutpile non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Guy 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong KEEP!! Time Cube is proven to be the absolute truth of the universe beyond the faintest iota of doubt. We now know that humanity is in a dire state due to Cubeless ignorance and nihilistic brainwashing. Dr Gene Ray tells us that 1-corner Academia and singularity-religion are brainwashing the populace with evil-fraught lies: yet, Wikipedians (some of them at least) insist on suppressing Time Cube.

    Now if we examine the Talk:Time Cube/Delete talk-discussion page, we will notice that the Time Cube article has previously withstood the VfD process not once, not even twice, but THREE ENTIRE TIMES. And based on the "Keep" votes on this page that have been made by strong, noble, rational-minded sane sensible people, it appears that Time Cube will again prevail victoriously for the FOURTH time. (Four is the supreme number of the universe.)

    Let us all acknowledge the Cubic truth. Dr Gene Ray is the greatest thinker and wisest human. There are four simultaneous days in one rotation of Earth ([2]) and Time is Cubic, not Linear. Without Time Cube, humanity could be destroyed by a nuclear armageddon, or by volatile nihilistic cannibalism. Do we really want humanity to self-destruct, taking much of nature with it? We must all seek Time Cube, and PRESERVE THE TIME CUBE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE!!!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.5.186 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above poster is a single-purpose account editing only Time Cube related articles. Stylistic elements imply that the same poster may have also editted Gene Ray under one or more other IPs as well. Serpent's Choice 12:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Serpent's Choice", yeah I pay great attention to Time Cube related articles on Wikipedia, for the reasons I outlined above in my comment. See also my [3] 31337 website—on which may be found valuable Cubic discourse to stimulate 4-corneristic thought.
above poster is an IP address. Please assume good faith, you know nothing of his motives, intent, or purposes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the above IP address and the contents of what he posted match the pattern of User:Time Cube Guy perfectly. He's exhausted whatever good faith was warranted him long, long ago; the ArbCom once rejected a case brought against him by describing him "an incoherent POV-pushing anon" who could be blocked on sight without need of their approval. We don't actually block him since that IP range is from a dialup ISP, but his edits and comments on Time Cube articles are usually just reverted without comment these days. That said, I still think the article should be kept; the attention of this one particular loon is irrelevant to that. Bryan 21:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Bryan, I think I'm still acting in good faith, and have previously acted in good faith many times. I view that "ArbCom" decision as unfair and unjustified, especially as they merely dismissed me cursorily with a "summary judgement" as it was called, not even bothering to weigh and consider the detailed evidence. But I feel that I am a considerate and productive Wikipedia contributor, and that whatever controversy or disagreements I may have caused were not of excessive proportions and were acceptable under the Wikipedia guideline of "Be Bold".
  • Keep. We have a lot of articles on bogus "scientific theories". Mere absurdity is no reason not to have an article on something if it has achieved a sufficient degree of notability. *Dan T.* 13:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep"--I need a good laugh/remove myself from my evil world view. Strong Keep Notable, per everyone else. --Vaergoth 11:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am -- honestly -- curious as to how the supporters of keeping this article feel it meets current policy guidelines. What references for this article are being considered reliable sources? And, frankly, what is this article about, from a category perspective? If we cannot agree whether we are talking about a pseudoscience theory, a website, a misguided attempt at humor, or simply a meme, then the article probably does not meet the verifiability standards. If this is, as was mentioned, "the canonical example of a crank theory" then surely something verifiable addresses it as such. Otherwise, why would this not be better served merged with Gene Ray into a single, more cognizant article? Serpent's Choice 05:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the reliability of each of the the sources over on the article's talk page. If you have specific problems with these references, by all means bring them up. I suggest using the article's talk: page, though. AfD shouldn't be for an in-depth discussion of article contents like this, and general assertions about how the references as a whole are reliable/unreliable aren't terribly useful. Bryan 05:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Serpent's Choice", we have plenty of external links in the Gene Ray and Time Cube articles, and while it's possible that some of them may contain a few erroneous sections that are unreliable, I feel we have a sufficient wealth of information on the subject to make the articles adequately accurate. I agree with Bryan that it's not helpful to simply make vague blanket assertions about possible reliability and to not provide specific pointers that could be used to resolve the issue.

Weak keep so long as the linkfarm at the end can be converted into references to show the article isn't OR. Percy Snoodle 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my weak keep was deleted by Jitse Niesenand replaced by his weak delete[4]. I'm going to assume that it was an accident, but please don't do it again. Percy Snoodle 13:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My edit indeed removed Percy's comment. I'm terribly sorry about that. I certainly did not intent to do this, and I have no idea how it could have happened. Thanks for assuming good faith. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Time_Cube_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1069489098"