Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

message: This is NOT the place to debate the validity or otherwise of CTMU, but to discuss the deletion of the article. Please also cease personal attacks, incivility, and outright hostility immeadiatly. Jefffire 15:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to editors 

message: This theory was in fact published in a journal: 
*Paper Published September 2002 in Progress in Complexity, Information and Design, the journal of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design. 
:Also, you can use this web site found here to source the article. Main websites may in fact be used. I hope this helps out. SynergeticMaggot 02:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Journal has no impact factor, website is written by adherants. Neither are proof of notability. Jefffire 12:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Compare and contrast to 45,000,000 for time cube. Jefffire 12:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly both are notable ideas.  I didn't say they were credible.  --Michael C. Price talk 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that time cube is notable, and that the CTMU isn't, which the 3000 times more hits for time cube testifies to. Clearly both are garbage. Jefffire 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it shows that one is more notable than the other, not that one is notable and the other isn't.  And your inference drawn from the shaky premise is still a non-sequitur: garbage <> unnotable.  Only a herd animal would argue thusly.  --Michael C. Price talk 13:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Charming, please read our policies on personal attacks WP:NPA. A mere 14, 000 hits suggests very strongly that the topic is non-notable. And I have never suggested that garbage = non-notable. Jefffire 13:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  After your claim of un-notability you said "Clearly both are garbage."  --Michael C. Price talk 13:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also said that time cube was notable. Even if I hadn't that doesn't explain your rudeness. Jefffire 13:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  :::This AfD isn't only about notability, anyway. The quality of the theory itself isn't really the issue, even though it has arisen. The issue is whether or not the article is a neutral, legible account of an extremely obscure fringe theory, or whether it is an overinflated soapbox to reflect the author and his fans' opinions of it. The latter seems to apply here, and moreover Google hits aren't the only things that count when it comes to this sort of thing: one has to look at publication, and while the author has been written about by many, his theory has not been the subject of a single article, either popular or academic. That's why the theory article is up for AfD but the author bio isn't. Even most of those google hits will focus on the fact that this chap has such a high IQ, and that he has a Theory of Everything, bla bla. The actual content of the theory will be a much smaller percentage of those hits. I would say that 14 000 hits hardly constitute notability either. Byrgenwulf 13:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree -- up to the last sentence.  --Michael C. Price talk 13:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: While Tim Smith's overall summary is presumably correct, I do not beleive a "close with no consensus" is the correct resolution. linas 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article and notability