Deletion of Time Cube (7th nomination)

Comment: and '''SALT''' all future potential AfD's for the topic.   applies, and there's nothing been said here that's effectively challenged previous AfD outcomes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: There are more than enough sources in the article that help it satisfy notability. |Continuing to bring it up for deletion does not change this, and only serves to waste everyones time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED)

Comment: WP:WEB is a guideline, not a policy. The core policy here is  - does the "one substantial independent, third-party source" satisfy our verifiability policy? If it does we can '''Keep''' the article. If it doesn't we must '''Delete''' the article as unverfied/able
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:VERIFY)

Comment: It has already been merged with Gene Ray. Use the talkpage to build consensus whether it should perhaps be '''moved''' to Gene Ray and reworked into more of a biographical structure. Since this is de facto the article about Gene Ray, it also needs to comply with . ScienceApologist is right that at the bottom of things, this is an article about a person suffering from a kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and while it is fair to discuss this Ray terms of his impact as a classic online crank, we need to be careful not to let this turn into an attack page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Nominator's argument seems to be that sources are not recent. However,|Notability is not temporary: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)