Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Titor

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 of the debate was keep. – Robert 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Titor

Rubbish Article Please Delete Mike 07:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Valid enyclopedic topic, definitely notable as any Google search will tell you. The solution to a content problem is not to pretend the topic does not exist. Johnleemk | Talk 08:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Titor I wrote a reply to this. Mike 09:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep echoing comments by johnleemk, I don't see the entry as rubbish. Content issues should be resolved by talk page talk, painful as that may be at times. --Alf ^melmac 09:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Yeah I understand, It is just so awful at present the rewrite would take a painfully long time. If it does not get deleted it has to be rewritten. There have been articles better than this which have been deleted. Mike 09:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Article quality, as long as the article is salvageable, does not matter in an AfD. I can write the most accurate, encyclopedic and precise article ever about why all the socks in my drawer are white, but that would not save it from being deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 10:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid topic. The solution to a "bad" article written on a valid topic is to improve it, not delete it. --Deathphoenix 13:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Johnleemk. --Terence Ong ^Talk 13:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. --Americanadian 13:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. This is a bad article that needs improved, not deleted. Movementarian 14:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- This article as it stands is unencyclopedic and unworthy of Wikipedia. To me, the phenomenon also seems to be not notable enough in the world outside Wikipedia to warrant mention. -- Egil 14:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So most of the 187,000 hits Google scores for "John Titor" (the exact phrase) originate from Wikipedia and its mirrors? Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate what seems to be a clear attempt at censorship. Just when this subject begins to gain more attention, you want to delete the article from your site. That makes no sense at all except in the context of censorship. If this story is so fraudulent, then why the rush to censor it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.88.67.230 (talk • contribs).

• • • This is not censorship at all. There are myriads of places where you may worship/Study/criticise John Titor. But Wikipedia is just not one of them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where content is encyclopedic. It is not for everything, and certainly not for the John Titor article in its current state. Sorry. -- Egil 10:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, quality of writing is not a valid criterion for deletion. Subject notable enough to keep. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Its an interesting topic, sure it could use a better page, but as stated before the solution is to improve the page not to delete it. O.F.Fascist 19:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - very interesting topic people will want to know more about. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. per EWS23 et al.Crunch 00:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. I don't know about you, but I happened to really enjoy this article myself. Grandmasterka 03:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this article is not rubbish really Yuckfoo 03:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article about notable claims. Likely hoax, but clearly presented as claims rather than as a hoax itself. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-10 04:59Z
• Speedy Keep. I love this article, its on my "interesting articles to explore" section of my user page. Definitely one of the things that keeps Wikipedia interesting. Croat Canuck 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment/Withdrawal. Well fine. I withdraw my deletion request and hope it can be made into a proper article fit for Wikipedia and not a page of garbage. Mike 06:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite per above. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 09:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• I guess the voting should be for a rewrite now lol Mike 10:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and, if needed, stick to cleanup. I think the weirdness/hoax/debate/thing itself was quite notable and the article is quite extensive. perhaps too extensive, but that's what cleanup is for, not AfD. (And the article is good material for WP:UA too in any case. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Eek, this was withdrawn? Someone close the AfD, please? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: That is not officially possible due to Egil's vote to Delete. A speedy keep can only happen if there are no delete votes yet. Although this could probably be dealt with under WP:IAR... Stifle 20:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: all the objections I may concord with regard the factuality of the article, but that is something that requires improvement, not deletion. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 06:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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.