| Revision as of 01:37, 2 April 2006 editWiwaxia (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers3,195 edits →[]: Keep vote← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:04, 2 April 2006 edit undoHenrik (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,538 edits →[]: changing voteNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| * '''Neutral''' ] 21:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC) | * '''Neutral''' ] 21:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Delete''' as prod nominator. As far as I can tell, it goes to great length to argue that time is cyclical by invoking various famed physicists. At the moment, it is unreferenced and fails ] and ] --] 21:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC) | * <strike>'''Delete''' as prod nominator. As far as I can tell, it goes to great length to argue that time is cyclical by invoking various famed physicists. At the moment, it is unreferenced and fails ] and ] </strike>. '''Cleanup'''. The added references support keeping, there appears to be a real concept somewhere in there. However, the article is of very poor quality, but that is not in itself a reason for deletion. --] 21:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' as original research and crankery. ] 21:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' as original research and crankery. ] 21:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 08:04, 2 April 2006
Cyclical time
Article was put up for prod as "Unreferenced pseudo-scientific nonsense", but the tag was removed without comment by the original author, so up for a vote it goes.
- Neutral DMG413 21:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as prod nominator. As far as I can tell, it goes to great length to argue that time is cyclical by invoking various famed physicists. At the moment, it is unreferenced and fails WP:OR and WP:V. Cleanup. The added references support keeping, there appears to be a real concept somewhere in there. However, the article is of very poor quality, but that is not in itself a reason for deletion. --Henrik 21:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)- Delete as original research and crankery. Brian G. Crawford 21:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Friedrich Nietsche (Eternal recurrence)
http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/great/projects/Adams.htm
Henri Poincare: Poincare recurrence theorem
http://www.math.umd.edu/~lvrmr/History/Recurrence.html
Paul Steinhardt, Ph.D Princeton University
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/dm2004.pdf
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/steinhardt02/steinhardt02_index.html
Plato and Aristotle views on time and eternity
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8094(196401)14%3A54%3C35%3ATNAEIP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6
Time in ancient historiography
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2656(1966)6%3C1%3ATIAH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9
Please read this: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-02c.html
and: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html
Above links were added by: Riveros11 (talk · contribs) 22:08, 1 April 2006
Keep Appears to be referenced, but the article could be improved. Fishhead64 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Delete per Fan1967's point. Fishhead64 01:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)- Delete Even with references, the article is an attempt to synthesize a number of very differing viewpoints, and does qualify as original research. - Fan1967 22:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, original and crackpot --Deville (Talk) 00:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'm sure we can use an article on this concept and I don't think it is trying to merge them all into one but explain them all (but going about it the wrong way). Kotepho 00:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable concept, referenced in the works of Strauss and Howe. Wiwaxia 01:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)