Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time travel urban legends

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 no consensus. From my read of the deletion discussion, the valid arguments boil down to whether or not the article is encyclopedic as well as whether or not the sum of all entries conferred notability for the topic as a whole. I could not find a consensus for deletion on any of those aspects. –MuZemike 22:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time travel urban legends

)

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

Wow, where do I begin. The article began from an alert on the Notability noticeboard, where instead of deleting the individually non-notable people, apparently someone decided to just plop them all together in one article without addressing the notability concerns in the first place. Unfortunately, it was a lazy way out that didn't solve the underlying problem in the first place (but that's its own issue). For instance,the line "A photograph from November of 1940 was alleged to show a time traveller.It was claimed that his clothing and sun glasses were modern and not the style worn in 1940." constitutes the entirety of a full L2 section and is pretty representative of how bad the rest of the article is. There are also significant issues with BLP on this article -- despite being decently sourced, the section on the time travelling spammer brings up the subject's mental health for no significant reason and begs the question why it's even there in the first place? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several of the subjects have received a fair amount of coverage (especially John Titor and the 1928 cell phone). Much of the nominators arguments come down to issues of writing quality rather than whether the topic is notable. As urban legends go, these are among some of the most well known. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The most well known? (Citation needed). Not a single one of the incidents on this page is mentioned on the
  urban legends article. It's beyond a stretch to say that these are "among some of the most well known". Furthermore, we already have an article on John Titor. That just reinforces the point that if the rest of these couldn't survive on their own as individual articles, why are they expected to be any different lumped together into one conspiracy theory article? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Comment the
    urban legends uses specific examples that illustrate specific aspects of the anatomy of an Urban Legend it's wholly inappropriate to consider the article as some measure of how well known specific legends are. These articles may stand on their own as the Carlssin one did and as further time passes and analysis by secondary sources increases there may be a point where spinout is inevitable but at the moment it makes more sense to keep them together - probably with a bit more detail into this genre of urban legend as a whole. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete - Slight coverage does not warrant to keep an article that is wholly unencyclopedic. Η936631 (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notice at the notability noticeboard was placed due to questions of relevance in relation to the Charlie Chaplin film's article - it was quickly established as a notable Urban Legend but
WP:UNDUE
would apply to giving any analysis in the Chaplin article. Rather than have a series of single Paragraph stubs (as already existed in the Carlssin article) it made sense to cover them within a single article (a prose list of these events) better scope for expansion. I broadly agree about the L2 Paragraph on the man in the 1940's, but as it already had extensive coverage and further coverage occurred as a result of the Chaplin video I feel it should be retained but moved to a different part of the article. Regarding the BLP aspect, we have reliable sources (and I can provide more - including interview with his parents) discussing Robby Todino's mental state in regard to these emails - It is notable that Robby believed that he could make contact with real time travellers - and conducted this activity as a personal attempt to achieve that rather than as part of his multiple commercial spamming operations.

On Η936631's claim that the subject matter is "wholly encyclopaedic" I would quote

WP:FIVE Wikipedia "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias" in the past I have owned specialized encyclopaedias on subjects such as UFO research and the Paranormal that cover time travel in articles such as these - however each section would be in it's own entry something that seems wasteful to do here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

- Comment - I'd warrant that creating an entire article and cluding together slightly connected elements, instead of keeping them in their parent articles seems ever more wasteful. At least on of the componesnts - the Chaplin one, should be retained in the parent article. Titor already has its own article. We can categorize articles that have the 'mysterious time traveler' or whatever element. Its the difference between a smart encyclopedia and a
  'nyah nyah nyah' one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

How is it more wastefull to have one place wehre users can come and look up time travel legeands then have them spread all over wikipedia with no patern. I want to look up a time traveler at a bridge opening. Where would I look? I don't know the name of the bridge or where it was, just that a time traveller was involved. I do a search for time travel I would hope this page comes up, if I did a search for bridge how many pages would I have to wade through?Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I said to anther user who objected to this page, it's a work in progress. Yes it needs work I agree but all of these subjects have been coverd in multiple RS. Not enouogh to warretn their own articels or to be included in artciels on other subjects.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Agree with Slatersteven. johnclean184 (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, you agreed with Slatersteven's vote 10 minutes before he made it. Maybe you were on the experiment! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a great article, but presents notable information in a way that will be interesting and useful to readers and will contribute to greater understanding of the topic. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This entire article was cludged together by the creator so he could justify removing one of the instances from its parent article. It's an ongoing hot mess from snout to tail, and while I am intrigued by the concept of all of these in one place, this should have sat in the creator's sandbox until it was a lot closer to being ready. As it stands, its a simple gaming of the system. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The artciel in question is this one The Circus (film) please see Talk:The_Circus_(film)#RfC:_George_Clarke.27s_time_travel_urban_legend.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Jack I don't want to repeat what has been said to you at the notability noticeboard, but the Time Traveller is not

Liz Hurley created a notable event when she wore a unique Black Versace Dress to the Premiere of Four Weddings and a Funeral that event is not relevant to the film so is not included within the Film Article it is however relevant to her and is included within her article (in the lead no less). Your continued insistence that the time traveller Urban Legend is relevant has been proven wrong by consensus and a delete of this article will simply remove all reference to the notable urban legend rather than suddenly making it relevant to The Circus. Your own argument is based on the the footage being considered relevant because of it's inclusion in the DVD release but the article currently contains no information on the DVD release to show that the DVD is relevant to the film in the first place let alone that an Urban legend based on that DVD footage is relevant to the film. Your other points are simply justification for an article clean up not for an article deletion. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

- Actually, you are incorrect, Stuart; my stance on its inclusion is clearly within policy. Therefore it isn't wrong, simply against the same four editors. You are beating the same dead horse by insisting that it isn't related. This is an AfD, weighing the merits of the article. It's a crappy one, and you should instead confine your comments to those discussing the actual article being nom'd for deletion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have failed to show that policy in all the forums you have raised this in, again see WP:Undue and the essay WP:HTriv this does not support more than a brief mention within WP:AFD, reasons for deleting are WP:V, WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:NPOV none of those apply in this situation because the article is well referenced, verifiable and not original research, each section is also neutrally worded to maintain NPOV. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Agree with Stuart Jamieson about The Circus, and hope that this doesn't become yet another venue for flaying that well-beaten horse. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't bring up the topic, Scotty, aside from pointing out the circumstances surrounding its Bad Faith creation. This is a discussion re: this article's sustainability in the Wikipedia. Stay on target, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Bad faith"? Tone down the rhetoric and please
assume good faith. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
AGF doesn't excuse bad behavior. The article was created so as to presumably remove any reason for the claim of time travel being anywhere near The Circus. It was bad faith in that it was cludged together with no real effort to bring it to acceptable standards, so long as it was out of the article in question. It's so transparent that it's almost a case of
WP:SPADE to even bother mentioning it. It's the origin of a substandard article created with tons of speculative info. It's why we are here now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Lets focus on this specific article please. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Swatjester; I've been dealing with these particular four editors, who haven't really been easy to work with to this point.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least till they get a bit further. For example this is RS and worth the read. this is another RS, but some of them aren't RS. Still, I think there's something in FRINGE which allows bad sourcing for these things. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Decently sourced" remains a rare quality on Wikipedia. Though we occasionally get an argument that people and events have to be notable to even be referred to at all, the very first sentence in
WP:N is "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." The primary purpose for an encyclopedia is that people consult it to find out more about something that they wish to learn information about. Mandsford 20:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Totally agree that this is the sort of thing that some of our readers might like to read - there is substantial indications that thye like that sort of thing. However, it would be far easier and more encyclopedic to create a category for this info instead, wherein the parent articles where many of these 'urban legends' occur would simply keep the info there. Pre-existing articles, like the Titor one, would not be repeated in another article but simply linked by category. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No policy-based reason given for deletion, just some people saying that don't like the article. I'm not a fan of it either. If I had my druthers I'd eliminate all Internet hoaxes and memes from the encyclopedia entirely. But I'm not seeing any reasons under policy to delete. It did originate from discussions concerning one of the items, because that item (The Circus "phone user") was clearly inappropriate for that article. Originally I had notability concerns about this article when it was far shorter, and tagged to that effect, but the article was expanded and I withdrew the tag. If I'm wrong about policy, please advise. I'll look back here in a few days and see. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Changing to Redirect to category. I've been disturbed from the beginning by the lack of encyclopedic value of the items in this article that are not already significant enough to have articles of their own. I think that creating a category on time traveler urban legends is the ideal solution. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I have to agreee~~. If wiki is to have any repectability and integrity it should be a repository of unsefull and valuable informaion, not artciesl about some kid having his finger bit.' , But if we are to have them at least keep them from damaging more important artciels. Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find the last comment to be very telling, and encapsulates the problem here. The above user is the creator of the article being considered for deletion, and even he considers it lacking in integrity and usefulness. Despite the ill-considered comparison (the finger-bit kid never received the level of RS and V media attention that The Circus claim did), the user created the article to - quite simply - provide a landing pad for the info he wanted deleted from the article. He created the article, and doesn't even consider it "unsefull and valuable informaion" [sic], instead seeking to isolate it from "more important artciels"[sic]. What he likely fails to realize is that, in Wikipedia, all articles are of encyclopedic value. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lay of the PA's argue againt articel, not the percived motives of otehr edds.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with ScottyBerg --
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to delete a well-sourced article, even if the subject raises eyebrows and giggles. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

It isn;t a matter of IDONTLIKEIT, RotS (well, it is the case in the article that inspired the creation of this one); in this matter, its more a case f there being a far better way to have accomplished the same goal without the "Dinner for Schmucks" feel of this result. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have Swatjester's comments been addressed here? I share his concerns about this article and I wonder if we are really dealing with an actual topic, rather than a list of time travel related hoaxes, or perhaps better yet, a category. I've looked through the urban legend literature and I'm not seeing anything about time travel. Do we have a legitimate topic here, or something Wikipedia editors put together? We have a situation where individual entries aren't notable for their own article, but are grouped together on a single page. As far as I can tell, we still have a notability problem and I have yet to find a single source about urban legends that discusses these incidents. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Myth" or "Mystery" are sometimes used instead of but as a synonym of "Urban Legend" in some sources.

Time Travel:Myth Or Reality? - Richard Heffern, 2003

The myth buster: 150 great misconceptions clarified By Nirmal Chandra Asthana, Anjali Nirmal

Mysteries and Secrets of Time By Lionel and Patricia Fanthorpe, Patricia Fanthorpe -2007 (noted Fortean investigators working from a NPOV)

Much of Jenny Randles work also investigate Time Travel Myths and Urban Legends from a NPOV. Including "Breaking the time barrier: the race to build the first time machine", "Time travel: fact, fiction and possibility", and "Time Storms:Amazing Evidence for Time Warps, Space Rifts, and Time Travel"

Above Top Secret: Uncover the Mysteries of the Digital Age Jim Marrs - 2008

Heretics: Past and Present: Can We Now Explain the Unexplainable? By Brian Allan

Weird Science and Bizarre Beliefs:Mysterious Creatures, Lost Worlds and Amazing Inventions by Gregory L. Reece

So there is material to confirm notability and verifiability, though changing Urban Legends in the title to something that takes in the synonyms as well is certainly a possibility that could be discussed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which of these sources, if any, discuss the subjects in the current article? My guess is that none of them do, except for TPE. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria I used to search for them was whether they discussed modern cases for which I chose John Titor so most cover that, Many cover TPE/MP, a handful cover the Chronovisor, and the remainder use other cases not yet listed or discuss the type of legend in a General style. Searching for the ones that covered Rudolph Fentz has thrown up several others not in that list, I haven't checked those in the list to see if he is included in any of them. Cases such as the circus will probably not appear in such books for a few more months and it may be difficult to identify ones about the Bridge opening man but if anything the amount of material in these documents which is not yet in the article is grounds to expand and improve not delete. The topic is notable, the individual cases are mostly notable and could have stood on their own, but would have been stubs with little room for expansion until such time as a critical level of secondary sourcing became available - here they can spin-out at that time, but are in context at the moment. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so TPE/MP, Chronovisor, and John Titor. Wouldn't this topic be better covered by a category rather than a list? Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely my point: keep the info in place in the articles, tag these articles with a category, and move on.

I think reasonably given time an in depth discussion of the intersection of time travel and myth/legend/mystery can be drawn from the above sources in fact some material should be taken out from our existing
Time Travel article where it currently discusses Ancient Myths in the same context as modern published fiction - The two are not the same and really it would sit better here where old and new myths alike can be discussed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
It sounds like you are broadening the scope of the topic rather than narrowing it, which does not help. In other words,
WP:CRYSTAL. There's no guarantee that Clarke's claim will appear in any book. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Viriditas, I'm not sure if there is some communication problem here so I'm going to try and repeat what I said. At the moment some Legends are represented in
Time Travel as fictional works (which is an unsourced claim). I am not considering a change to Time Travel in fiction or Time Tavel in popular culture but to Time travel Myths and Legends or similar with these ancient legends being represented as Legends (since they are). You are right that Clarke's claim may not appear in a book, but that does not mean it may not be well sourced in other media as being a myth or legend about a time traveller. TV and Print media have already covered it in such light. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Let's dispense with discussing the validity of the claim of time travel claims ("verifiability, not truth" is what counts here, as per
WP:V); it is very much besides the point. As well, while some of these are outright hoaxes, some of them haven't been discovered as such. In at least one case (I refer to the woman talking on what Clarke considered to be a cell phone), it would appear to have been a case of a crazy woman taking to a hearing aid in the way that we talk on our cells. A hoax would imply that Clarke doctored millions of DVD collections, which I don't think can find a reference for. L Keeping the information in their relevant articles (perhaps even expanded slightly to explain the background) and using a category allows us to monitor the expanded use of that cat. It's got to be a lot easier than trying to repair at least a half dozen articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I was not aware that any one had susgested we re-name the page time travel hoaxes. As you seem to acceot that (in the Clarke phoine mis-indetification incident) that in fact this is not a time traveller then calling this page Time travel Myths and Legends seems fair, that is what they are. Un proven (and in many cases unprovable) stories.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I don't think all the examples listed are notable enough to be covered by Wikipedia, but some of them are (e.g.
the Philadelphia Experiment), and arguably the general concept of 'time travel urban legends' is as well. It just needs to be watched carefully to avoid gathering too many trivial, unencylopaedic examples. Robofish (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
As previously mentioned, a category called something like "time travel in popular culture" would alleviate a lot of the impetus to add the trivial, unencyclopedic examples - an article without sufficient sources isn't going to survive long here anyway. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the items in this article not significant enough to have their own article are unencyclopedic and trivial, and have no objection to there being a category instead of a separate article. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree that withthe exception of those that already have thier own artices non of this stuff is notable in its own right. But I cannot belive that its notable enought to be put in articles about painters, or bridges would be aceptabel but putting it here is not. Our rulkes a clear that material should only be in artciels that are about the material. So Time travellers seen at film premiers or bridge opeings are not relevant to artciels about those films or bridges. So this is the only place I can see them having any relevacne.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrestled with that same point. However, after some reflection, my feeling is that
WP:INDISCRIMINATE requires deletion: "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Keep in mind, per this policy, that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Thus "while news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This same policy applies to constant and wearying struggle to ram the "cell phone" tidbit into The Circus article. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
You are offering a drastically different interpretation of INDISCRIMATE than is accepted within the wiki community. I'd note that the wikilink covers those events without a great deal of citation, which doesn't apply in at least the cell-phone user. The instance of at least one of these has at least a dozen, all from notable news outlets, as has been pointed out numerous times. Unfortunately, the side effect of articles like these is that it becomes a clearinghouse for any material that folk with
WP:CRYSTAL; of course every argument has been used under the sun to argue for its removal, each more bizarre (and incorrect, let's not forget that no one has been able to use a single policy correctly) than the last. While I think this AfD should conclude with the article's removal (instead noting the information in their parent articles in some minor way), I think a category would work better. Indeed, We have to keep the info in the article for the category to function as intended. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
If the article were to be deleted and replaced with a category, then the notable subtopics (John Titor, etc.) would become members of Category:Time travel urban legends. I haven't voted either way, but if, for example, someone wanted to create Chaplins Time Traveler [sic] as a potential member of this category, then they would have to demonstrate its notability. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I was originally not going to vote here, but after seeing the recent creation of Talk:Time travel urban legends/Sandbox by Stuart.Jamieson, even after we discussed the problems with the old version, I see we have a serious problem with an editor who refuses to abide by RS, OR, and NPOV. Many of the sources in Stuart's most recent version of this article are distorted beyond recognition, and either have nothing to do with time travel, quote blogs and primary sources, or attempt to synthesize all three to come to conclusions not reached in the original source material. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is essentially a list of legends. As a list, what is needed are some sources that discuss the topic of urban legends that involve time travel, as a concept, phenomenon or group (as opposed to what we have... a series of sources that each talk about a specific legend.) I question whether such sources exist. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential rewrite

Potential rewrite, Collapsed to focus AfD on Original article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Taking on board some of the comments above, I have begun an at least partial rewrite of the article in the article Sandbox Talk:Time_travel_urban_legends/Sandbox Whilst comments below would be appreciated on whether a move to this format would be beneficial (and hopefully change some of the above delete votes) I'd respectfully request that I be allowed to complete the rewrite in the subpage and that any issues that are not grounds for deletion (things like reliability of Sourcing, Manual of Style, etc) be left until (consensus not withstanding) this version is moved into article space. That said I still stand by my original point that some of these items are best placed in a list article not for a lack of notability but for a lack of potential for expansion, once this rewrite is complete it may be that a discussion has to take place on whether the article in it's current state should be retained in List of Time Travel Urban Legends or equivalent.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart has made a good start in his sandbox effort, and I'd certainly have no problem with holding off on the determination of this AfD pending completion of his rewrite. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think its a good start, but it reads like a persuasion article, wherein Stuart is arguing for a particular point of view, using citations. Last time I checked, this is an encyclopedia; we don't do persuasion here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then please let me know what my bias is so I can eliminate it. I am attempting to maintain a NPOV and was the person arguing most strongly for NPOV in the first version of the article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus for deletion, so there's no need to try and broker a deal. In the future, it is best to use your user space for rewrites and proposals, for example, User:Stuart.Jamieson/Time travel urban legends. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an attempt to broker a deal, it started out as an attempt to sum up the origins and structure of Time travel Urban Legends, during which it became clear that the list structure of the current article could be encapsulated in a article format. However it is reasonable to lay it on the table at the AfD in case it causes any of the votes to swap in either direction. As for your advice about where to write the draft, WP:Subpages is clear that article rewrites should occur in the Talk namespace and that only new article drafts should occur in the User namespace. I have only once reversed this for an article that was closer to a delete and new write and even it has been moved into Talk space from User Space for third party contribution before it gets moved into main space. In general please refrain from giving me any more "advice" of this nature. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal request that you be "allowed to complete the rewrite in the subpage and that any issues that are not grounds for deletion...be left until...this version is moved into article space" is an attempt to broker a deal. And, since it is not a collaborative rewrite, but your own personal take on the subject, it belongs in your user space. While it is true that the subpage guideline says that a major draft of an article revision may go in the talk namespace, it is assumed that this namespace will be used for collaborations between editors and in fact, this is generally deprecated in common usage regardless of what the guideline says. In other words, most editors use their user space these days, especially for writing a non-collaborative version of the article as you have done. This is why
discussed on the article talk page (and you were given a warning on your user talk page[1]). Instead of meeting the objections, you completely ignored them, and went ahead and deliberately reinstated the problematic material, adding more synthesis and OR than the first version. If this kind of patchwork quilting pattern represents the rest of the article, then you should not be using the talk namespace at all and you should confine your original research to your userspace, if anywhere at all. I hope you can use this advice to your advantage. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
To the contrary, I welcome collaborations which is why it is in Talk space and any editors willing to improve this version are welcome to do so. What I have requested is that we deal firstly with issues related to the AfD; Notability, verifiability, and NPOV and once they are resolved; guidelines that are not grounds for deletion such as RS and MOS can be dealt with. All your claims about
Urban Legends
though better cited, and covers the origins of all Urban Legends. If you don't like the quotes, find better ones that's the great thing about a collaborative project. 12:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
You said, "I have begun an at least partial rewrite of the article in the article Sandbox...I'd respectfully request that I be allowed to complete the rewrite in the subpage and that any issues that are not grounds for deletion...be left until...this version is moved into article space." I'm not seeing any invitation to collaborate, and it sounds like it is your rewrite and we're supposed to let you replace the old version with your draft, even though you have failed to address the old problems and have compounded them with your new version. I'm getting the sense that you haven't read
WP:SYN. Please read it. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Afraid I have to agree, insofar as the sandbox version has progressed. I liked the initial start, but it has morphed into a version that presents the same problems as the current article. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I applaud the effort to do a rewrite of the article, it is (as I and others have noted above) severely flawed - perhaps beyond recovery. You asked where the problems exist. The largest failing, as Viriditas pointed out, is that while even though you are working on a sandbox version of the article (and I don't necessarily fault you for putting it in the wrong place as you likely didn't know how to start a user subpage), your version eeds to reflect a version that has been borne out in discussion. If there are points of contention, mark them differently somehow, whether through bold text or whatever, so they can be pinpointed and discussed.

Secondly, Viriditas' comment, though a little condescending, is accurate. Your material is the very definition of
neutrality to present a balanced view of the subject. Your sandbox version - put simply - doesn't do that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for your comments Jack, and for agreeing that Viriditas continues to present a condescending manner towards me. I would like to address your points - firstly, I am happy to try and recover the article with the support of others and have started marking in strikethroughs and collapsed sections that are being contested. Secondly I am not trying to present my own opinion, although I do agree that unintentionally I synthesised (a policy I was already aware of Viriditas) - in my opinion these are all hoaxes and/or mistaken identity - however the article is fundamentally about a form of belief by a majority of individuals compared to a number of scientific explanations; in comparable religious articles for instance
Jesus walks on water the scientific explanations come after the belief and are presented as the minority viewpoint not the majority. Instead this article is being assessed as a WP:Fringe article with the majority viewpoint being represented as scientific opinion and with widespread coverage being dismissed by Viriditas in particular as not reliable (and part of the reason I did not include them in this draft). But if it is being taken as being about the individual opinion then these sources are acceptable - however wording and sourcing need to support that style. It's notable that all of the other sources which reliably approach the subject from a NPOV (such as Fanthrope, Randles, etc) never label the legends as such or as myth or folklore or whatever but simply consider the mythical viewpoint as another possibility amongst many with equal balance despite their fantastical nature. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Based on the discussion above, there is no support for your revision at this time, and it would be best if you move it to your user space before I also nominate it for deletion; POV forks don't belong in main space, and what you've written violates our OR policy. For more information, see this report I filed. Asking you to use your user space for your personal essays is not "condescending". Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a list, it meets
wp:rs. The current title sounds a bit dubious, perhaps it should be renamed Reports of suspected time travel.^walk victor falk^talk 17:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
It doesn't meet
WP:Source list. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

How so? Anyway lack of sources is no reason for deletion, as the subject of the article (that there have been reports of suspected time travel) is notable. ^walk victor falk^talk 22:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list in the original article has no good reliable secondary source that covers the topic, and was created by several editors from a disparate variety of sources, none of which cover the subject in whole or in part. Can you point me to a featured list that has similar problems? Also, the sandbox revision doesn't meet our most basic policies for OR and NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So now a list has to be at FL-level not to be deleted? I think the problem is there is a content dispute between editors (the fact that a subpage with an alternative version has been created is very symptomatic) and AfD is not the forum to resolve it. ^walk victor falk^talk 23:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, a list, all lists, need to be based on sources about the subject. The issues raised here have been brought to the table by many editors not involved in the content dispute, and in fact, have nothing to do with the disputed content, which you are correct in noting as a separate issue. Related issues are as follows: Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 22#The Circus (film) - Time Traveler ???

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80#Charlie Chaplin and time travel

Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Notability of 'time traveler' film in The Circus

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-10/The Circus (film)

Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Time_travel_urban_legends

Question Viktor how would you feel about a rename to Claims of time travel? There is already a badly sourced subsection of this title at Time travel#Claims of time travel, this might fit better as a fringe topic rather than as an Urban Legend/Folklore topic?

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_travel_urban_legends&oldid=1136467037"