Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glass hour

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 delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Dreadstar † 03:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glass hour

Glass hour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are not needed:

Glass hour (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

While Time travel as a concept may be the subject of an encyclopedic article, the terms 'Glass hour' and 'Time bridgers' are simply neologisms. Lkleinow (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete Can't find any evidence of particular notability for these terms --BrucePodger (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete Not noteable and most likely a hoax. archanamiya · talk 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• I vote that the GLASS HOUR wikipedia entry remain and is not deleted as it is an accurate account of a terminology and an activity that is explored by a group of individuals. I understand that there is mention of communication with the future, but it is also explained that work is being enacted to offer objective proof of the matter. There are actual, official scientists involved, and the references sited are valid and accurate. The inclusion of this article is no different than articles revolving around christianity or other deities who have groups participating in their cause, but yet have no definitive proof of these gods actual existence.

There are actual, known scientists who actively work on time travel. THeir experiments and research is not a hoax and they are listed as an article on wikipedia (example being Ronald Mallett). Ghost hunters is also another example of why GLass Hour should be included in wikipedia. Ghost hunters, people on a reality TV show go around researching the paranormal, which actually may not have "valid" mainstream evidence, but conduct their research nontheless and are included on wikipedia.

Glass Hours, is an actual activity who have participants that firmly believe in the TIme Bridgers cause, and are increasing in number. THis article was not intended as spam or advertisement or as endorsement in any way. I ask that the Glass Hour article be genuinely examined for what it is as it is not a hoax.

Thank you, Captain Bridger Capt bridger

(Capt bridger (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

• Strong delete. The primary source for this article appears to be "sessions held with a channeled entity, Elias". As a paranormal belief, this doesn't appear to be notable; as a scientific concept, it's utterly ridiculous. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that wikipedia was about viewing content from an objective reference point without our own personal bias's coming into play? The primary source is two different areas of reference: the Elias sessions along with the group of 150+ people who recognize the term "GLASS HOUR" to mean what was posted in the article (which I did revise and expand, siting more references); another source being several physicists that use the term as a type of jargon in the new equations they have formulated and are putting into practice. Paul Gill, a college graduate with undeniable credentials is in contact with Ronald Mallett, who is already well-established within the scientific field, are utilizing of this terminology.

The Elias material boasts well over 1,000 participants and has many roots in the Seth Material, which is also a rather significant group of individuals. Many Seth participants who followed Jane Roberts (the individual channeling Seth) recognize Elias as having the same validity and continuing where Seth left off. These are facts and they are accurate and can be validated. Calling the article I put time and attention to on behalf of myself and all of these many individuals who are also participating is unprofessional, especially considering that many articles about time travel's possibility---within the realm of distorting space to manipulate time (via light and gravity alteration)---has been released within the last week and within the previous month by more than well-known and well-backed physicists. I simply wish to convey that this is no hoax of any sort and I do have support from the many, many, many participants. though it is a small group and a newly developing phrase related to already established concepts, it is still a group of considerable size and we all are wishing the respect we deserve by simply being listed on wikipedia for more individuals to learn about this phrase and introduce ourselves. We may not be Oprah Winfrey, but we are people too. I am a representative.

Based on the comment of Zetawoof on the topic of paranormal beliefs, i will restate my example of GHOST HUNTERS who are largely based on what you would call speculation and they have no solid, mainstream proof that what they are doing is creditable, but yet they have an article here on wikipedia. Jane Roberts has her own article and she was a channel for the Seth entity that has a large following---all based on the paranormal beliefs. Is it because she's published?material on glass hour has been published, which is stated in my article. Is it because she made money on what was published? The time bridgers and those participants of the glass hour have their own online store with online merchandise where the money comes from they use to further their cause and continue sharing their beliefs. Even the Bermuda triangle is something that cannot be proven to act in accordance to the paranormal beliefs surrounding it, but there is an article on wikipedia about that...

If this article is deleted, so be it, that changes nothing for us or the movement; however, I don't find it to be too immense or extreme a task to allow this article stay on wikipedia. If this was a hoax and was something people didn't believe in, I would not have wasted so much time contributing to wikipedia and discussing this matter as I am. I would like more of a personally-slanted bias as a reason for deletion.

Thank you all again for your consideration(s), whatever they may be.

Captain Bridger 72.187.78.107 (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.78.107 (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that wikipedia was about viewing content from an objective reference point without our own personal bias's coming into play? You thought wrong. Wikipedia is about being an encyclopedia. I don't have an opinion on the article, but I felt this should be clarified. JuJube (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Capt bridger I understand what you are saying, JuJube. Thank you for that clarification. I was refering to a specific statement made, calling the concepts stated in the article I wrote based on a term used by a large group of individuals, defining something we view as significant, as "ridiculous". Capt bridger (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, all of the other paranormal beliefs which you mentioned (ghost hunters, the Bermuda Triangle) are things which have been discussed widely in popular media, and which can thus be critically examined. Seth and the "glass hour" do not appear to have been described outside web sites associated with "the time bridgers". Please read Wikipedia's content guidelines on Reliable sources, and its policy on Verifiability. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete ::: On the basis that the article itself, in opening, admits that the term is 1) jargon (an encyclopedia ought to contain language in general use -- jargon can be left to a sub-wiki; 2) has multiple meanings depending on context. Or merge with an NPOV article Time Bridgers. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment was going to vote straight out delete as hoax but, we already have an article on time travel with links to other spurious type things in that vein my thinking has been changed. Now I'm saying Delete as non-notable. I'm truly sorry Captain Bridger but, with a simple google search I can't find anything reliable that reports on this (in the first 100 hits for Glass Hour the term shows up 3 times in this context. One is the wiki article and 2 others from some blog. I wouldn't mind maybe including some of the theory on the time travel page but, otherwise this seems more like an advertisement for a non-notable movement than anything else. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment on the esubject of Ghosthunters. I think you'll find it is on wiki as a notable television show which as far as I am ware Glass Hour is not. AfD is not the place for just because "A" has an article means "B" gets one too. Each AfD needs to be addressed under its own merits and flaws. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Capt bridger I understand your reasons. Based on the suggestion to merge it with another article, TIME BRIDGERS, how can I be certain that this very same dialogue won't occur after I put a lot into an article and siting references, only to find that set for deletion as well? Because Time Bridgers is a group that may not have made it on the news or have their own TV show, I can see how the same points would more than likely be made against it and then we'd prolly be right back in this position...

What other wiki would any of you suggest I use, which would be more appropriate, since you mentioned using a sub-wiki? Capt bridger (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • 'Time Bridgers' would indeed likely get a similar nomination. While all of this may be interesting and fascinating to you, you did make it up, and the fact remains that there is no notability for 'Glass Hour' or 'Time Bridgers' in published works. Lkleinow (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Capt bridger Though I would clarify your statement of "made up", I do understand what you are saying. So, once I publish the book, the article would be allowed as an entry in wikipedia?
  

Also, what would be a sub-wiki for me to submit the article to that may be more suitable? Capt bridger (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete both as unencyclopedic. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Capt bridger What would be "both" in the statement delete both? My previous two questions still go unanswered, by the way, in which I'm not sure where the "DELETE BOTH" is in reference to my asking about further options...</ b>

I have made some changes to the introduction which clarifies the use of the term as derived from the Elias Material. In the fiction guidelines, it says I have to make clear a distinction based upon how the subject appears in references. The Elias material is a published body of material that spans 10 years worth of audio files and transcriptions. I state that the term is derived from such works, which would hopefully resolve the "hoax" suspicion as it gives the article proper context for the views. As for being "unencyclopedic", here is the official entry for what an Encyclopedia is: "A work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject". Capt bridger (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable fringe theory without independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete both, because Capt bridger said "we all are wishing the respect we deserve by simply being listed on wikipedia for more individuals to learn about this phrase and introduce ourselves." Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion or for personal webpages. Capt bridger, you might be able to try Scratchpad Wiki Labs for this sort of thing. --Pixelface (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete both Not independently sourced, sounds like original research, and promotion of a fringe view from a very small group of people. Vague references to notable technologies, events and people seem to be scattered through the article to try and make it more acceptable. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete both per Wikipedia:MADEUP. This looks far more like fanfic than like a legitimate scientific hypothesis. --M@rēino 17:44, 8 April 2008 (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.