Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Ray

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 keep. He is notable for his nuttiness. Daniel Case 03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Ray[edit]

Gene Ray lacks notability. Is wikipedia going to begin to give articles to every ranting and raving 'scientist' who has a 'theory' and a website. His theory isn't breakthrough anything. It's pure nonsense. Dr Schwantz 17:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Any notability of Ray's is covered in the time cube entry, for better or worse. Robinh 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect to Time Cube. Everything we need to say about the subject can be said there, and we should favor non-bio articles to bio articles in such cases, like we did with Daniel Brandt. --Allen 18:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Time Cube article asserts and explains very intelligently the notability of its subject matter. Gene Ray is the single contributor to that specific field, thus by default appears to match the criteria for notability of people: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.". There is this sense that someone interested in Time Cube might also be interested in reading a bit more about the man behind Time Cube - material that may not be appropriate for the Time Cube article itself. Merging the existing Gene Ray article into Time Cube would unbalance Time Cube, so a lot of material would need to be lost. As it stands the article gives a decent background to the man that appears reasonably balanced, fair and interesting. The relationship between the two articles is sound - it is symbiotic. Discussion on deleting the one should perhaps include deleting the other. SilkTork 19:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gene Ray might be a lunatic but he's still an interesting person that has made himself rather known on the internet. And a lot of stuff here wouldn't fit in the time cube article. Nxsty 23:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, he's spewing nonsense, but he's got a huge following as a humorist, and there's been a lot of press about him. Chubbles 00:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This comes somewhat close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just because a person's ideas don't appeal to the average scientifically literate educated white American man doesn't mean he isn't notable. Has received significant secondary coverage, which means that he passes WP:BIO. (edit to sign) --Charlene 05:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of reliable sources, and you don't get to lecture at MIT if you're not notable. hateless 07:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, "the event was organized exclusively by students" - I imagine they could book a lecture hall for any comedy Internet figure they wanted, if enough students were amused enough to pay for tickets. --McGeddon 10:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into Time Cube. We know the content isn't going to expand much more than this, and the resulting article would hold up as a more readable piece if not diluted across two. As it stands, there's so little that can be said about Time Cube that doesn't count as original research. It's better to spend a bit of that article talking about Gene, which is verifiable info. I agree with other comments above about how the Time Cube (website) is the reason for Gene's notability and why visitors on the Wikipedia would be reading about him. Metaeducation 00:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, it doesn't matter one bit whether or not his theory makes any sense (it doesn't). That is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, so I'd like to know why you even mentioned it. Disregarding that, your objection is lack of notability. Well, he's been on TechTV, he's given a talk at MIT, and he is a tremendously popular figure on the internet. Sounds pretty notable to me. 129.97.152.73 12:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Gene Ray is notable per Wikipedia:Notability, which states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article cites much coverage of this nature in the "Mass media" subsection of Gene_Ray#External_links. John254 02:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VERY STRONG KEEP!!!! Dr Gene Ray's discovery of the 4-Day Time Cube truly does render him the Greatest Thinker and the Wisest Human in all of known human history. How is it in the slightest part conceivable that anyone could remove from Wikipedia the article pertaining to such a monumental historical scientific social figure, the very model, hero and idol by which future generations shall live? How can we possibly corrupt ourselves to the lowest level of debaucherous ignominy and destroy humanity's future Cubic salvation by suppressing the 4-corner rationally proven Cubic Truth? From the "Gene Ray" article's prior retention at the outcome of an unsuccessful deletion attempt, we are already prescient of this new deletion-attempt's outcome—an outcome of PRESERVATION of the GENE RAY ARTICLE. So let's indeed preserve this wonderful article that, at its heart, really does inform us about that great man, namely, Dr Gene Ray, who is a Cubic Thinker and Wise Above Gods.
Keep. The man himself is a celebrity. At the very least Merge, but have Gene Ray re-direct to the Time Cube section and retain his bio. User:24.14.118.101 00:03, 8 July 2007 (note: this vote was copied from the this article-for-deletion's discussion page, at Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/Gene Ray, which was where the user had initially inappropriately placed it.)

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.