Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Titor/archive1

John Titor

A well written, complete, very neutral article about a very interesting possible time traveler. Swhawking 03:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references. Extensive quotes and claims of his writings with no citations. Untagged images. 119 03:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Funny topic, but quite good. I hope "John Titor" reads the article. Everyking 04:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Regrettably object. Excellent article, but hampered by insufficient references. I added some, but at the very least, we need Robert Brown's criticisms as a source, and they are no longer available. Johnleemk | Talk 08:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I come from later this month in the year 2005, and it eventually gets enough votes anyway. So you might as well let it be. Superking 18:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Superking, they'll develop time travel later this month? w00t. --mathx314 22:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object The article needs significant reworking to be NPOV, grammatically correct, and better written. Jun-Dai 01:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Quite good, but still not NPOV. I hope that someone addresses the inconsistencies and ambiguities in Titor's quotes as well. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:29, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Awful, trivial, nonsensical, kookish, POV filled and unencyclopedic. Does anyone else think this should be deleted? I'm thinking of listing it on VFD.--Deglr6328 06:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support Brookie 16:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but as others say, it still needs work re: inconsistencies and too much direct quotage. --Vodex 21:28, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Fascinating topic, sufficient depth, but could do with some tidying up and more references. Don't just tell us the arguments for and against, tell us who made these arguments. Who are the main parties in this controversy? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Interesting read, but too many weasel words and not NPOV. --mav 18:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)