Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time loop logic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Users are welcome to merge in the future if there is talk page consensus for that (no need for AfD for merges). I believe this article does not explain its notability, nor does it cite a single source. I have tagged as such. If I was a bit more bold, I would have deleted it. Please bring this article up to standards or it WILL be deleted in the future. (also, I am not comfortable merging this text as it is because it still is unsourced/not verifiable.)-Andrew c [talk] 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time loop logic

Time loop logic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a theory which appears to have no currency outside of a single paper by Hans Moravec. Fans of Isaac Asimov will note some parallels with The Endochronic Properties Of Resublimated Thiotimoline and may be inclined to deduce that it is a hoax. Whether it is or is not, te author does not use this article title as a term in the paper. Nor does the paper appear to be peer-reviewed. So: amusing as this is, I think it violates policy by promoting a fringe theory or giving undue weight to an idea. The title has no obvious connection to the idea's proposer, so a redirect does not seem appropriate. Cruftbane 19:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No verifiable sources, no peer-review, might be a hoax or OR. --Chuck Sirloin 20:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sirloin. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- real article as far as I can see, and nothing to refute it, or do I misunderstand Assuming Good faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.65.24 (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The source I used is in the external links, and I recall being prompted to look it up and write an article about this based off of encountering the concept in a popular science magazine (likely Discover or Scientific American) so it's not isolated to just that one original source. I'll go rummaging around to see if I can find what issue it was, but that could take a bit of time. It would have been nice if you'd raised this issue in a talk page or given some other indication of your concern before lunging straight to AfD. Bryan Derksen 23:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It'll probably be a few days before I have the opportunity to dig up my boxes of old magazines or find a suitable index, but in the meantime a little web searching has shown a mention of Moravec's work on this at Nahin, Paul J.. Time Machines: Time Travel in Physics, Metaphysics, and Science Fiction, 297. . I don't have the book and Google only had one page of the section this is in available, though, so I can't tell how much detail is in there. Also, Moravec's paper got published by the journal Extropy. Don't know what sort of peer review that entails. (Moravec, Hans (July 1992). "Time Travel and Computing". Extropy (9): 15-20. )
  • Keep- I've heard of it, and it seems logicall verifiable... needs some sources and to be sorted, but not deletable. Dunno about the title of the article...JJJ999 02:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)--
  • Delete the sourced coverage may be non-trivial, but it isn't independent and it definitely isn't multiple. As such, the article fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle 15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • would still stick with my keep...JJJ999 06:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

move to keep- no consensus. Clean up.JJJ999 00:26, 5 October 2007 (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.