Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Provonsha paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:57, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Provonsha paradox

This article was already listed under NPOV disputes, but I think it's better just to delete it. It appears to be non-notable; rather, it's the (high-school age) author's personal musings on theology. Google search for the author or the concept turns up nothing. -- Dominus 16:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: I have corrected the capitalisation. Double-check it for me please. There has never been an article at Provonsha Paradox. No vote yet. Andrewa 18:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • del. non-verifiable. No reference on web for this provonsha, nor his paradox. Mikkalai 23:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Megan1967 01:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as deep toughts. Wyss 01:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not the place for introducing new theories. Ливай | ☺ 03:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Yep, those are Deep Thoughts, alright. Just not quite deep enough or honest enough. Age and further reading for the author. Deletion for the article. Geogre 04:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's good. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 10:56, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research, and probably unsalvagable in terms of its supposedly-factual references to the subject matter AlexTiefling 17:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT with a rewrite -Wikipedia will not be improved by deleting articles, but by making them work for the reader. I suggest to re write it the best we can.

ArpadGabor 16:07, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. "Original" "research". Josh Cherry 00:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable vanity original research. DreamGuy 02:43, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I already voted to keep it with a suggested rewrite, but I am just wondering if we considerd this source:

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/P/Paradox.htm.

In my opinion this particular paradox does fit nicely into the long list of others. I can't see why should it be considered vanity or even original research. Could somebody enlighten me please?

ArpadGabor 17:30, Jan.2 2005

We at the USA a being regularly punished for not reading small print :-) Small print at our link says that the article is from wikipedia (cf. "Paradox"), hence it cannot be "source" here. Mikkalai 22:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for the validity of the paradox: all its paradoxality is invalidated by a very simple thing, neglected in the discourse: "previous experience" (if you didn't get the clue, you may ask me at my talk page, not here). Hence the article erroneous. Of course, eroneous beliefs are encyclopedic, but in this case much more significant notability criteria must be satisfied. Mikkalai 22:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, original research. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mrwojo 21:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.