Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unanswerable questions

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion ^talk 02:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of unanswerable questions

Unencyclopædic; the notion is inherently PoV, and involves speculation (who's to say whether a question is unanswerable rather than unanswered?). The one question in the list has many answers, in fact; it may not have an answer that everyone agrees on, but few interesting questions have. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, just to make things clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Man, I love lists of one thing. Delete. -R. fiend 22:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• An answer and a proof are different things, whatever the logical positivists say. The only possible way a question can be unanswerable is if it is not asked (if one takes the strictest definition of answer). Therefore the presence of this list automatically precludes anything from appearing on it, which is plainly nonsense. As none of that even touches near deletion policy, I'll suggest inherent POV and unencyclopaediocity (or whatever). If it were possible to write (and I don't think it is), it is a philosophical point, not an encyclopedic one. Delete, by the way. [[smoddy]] 22:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• As a positivist ;) I take issue with your statement; I don't think anybody uses "unanswerable" that way. That said, delete this nonsense. Brighterorange 04:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• My apologies. I wasn't talking about logical positivists in general, but rather one or two whom I know. I understand your issue having reread my original vote. Sorry! [[smoddy]] 12:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• What is the point of this list? (As I thought) delete --Doc (?) 22:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps the only unanswerable question is who thought this was encyclopaedic, NPOV, factual, not original research, verifiable, possible for sources to be cited etc etc etc. Whoever made this, please read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and then contribute. Sorry if this sounds overly harsh, but a list of one item, about a stupid topic, that does not conform to Wikipedia's most basic policies must be deleted. Batmanand 22:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I was so sad to find that nothing interesting was listed. Not that anything would make sense. - Tεxτurε 22:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has anybody even read the disscussion page? The whole point of this page is for it to be expanded! If there's nothing interesting, then add to it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.2.175 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 2 August 2005.
  • Just incase it is not read, here is a paraphrase of the disscussion page:
    • This page should be expanded first and then decided whether to be deleted. There are plently of lists on Wikipedia that have no ending. So "unmaintainable list" is not a good excuse at all. Also, many have said that the only possible way a question can be unanswerable is if it is not asked. This is not true. If it was not asked, it would not be unanswerable in the first place. But since it is asked, and there is no answer that has solid proof, it is unanswerable. And just because the list is very short doesn't mean it should be deleted. It should exist for at least 20 days before even being considered for deletion. There isn't much of a difference between "Unanswerable" and "Unanswered". The only difference is that "Unanswerable" means it will never be answered. But regardless of this technicality, the main idea is still the same. And also, how is this topic POV when anybody can add to it, and the questions added to the list are the same that many different cultures have been asking for centuries? (For example, there are many questions that are never meant to be answered in the first place, and trying to answer them creates a POV. But since this list is only meant to have questions and not answers, it isn't POV.) Also, because this list falls under the catagory of Wikipedia:Incomplete lists, it does go along with Wikipedia standards.

00:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.2.175 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 3 August 2005.

• • What an unanswerable question is is POV. The topic would be impossible to keep to Wikipedia standards. Furthermore, the questions are answerable, for example the only one there at the moment ("What is reality") is the subject of a whole branch of philosphy, metaphysics. This is a topic that is POV, unverifiable and covered in other articles. Sorry, but I still vote delete Batmanand 23:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless and unmaintainable. --malathion ^talk 23:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintainable and open ended. ManoaChild 23:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see Template:Dynamic list —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.2.175 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 August 2005.
    • Comment. Irrelevant. A list that is never closed is different from a list which is so vague as to be meaningless. ManoaChild 23:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unanswerable is POV hansamurai 飯侍 (burp) 23:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - either potentially endless list or unavoidably POV. Not to mention that it would include myriad of questions who do have answers proponents of some POVs refuse to accept, because they are not mysterious or romantic enough - Skysmith 08:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete subjective and unmaintainable. JamesBurns 04:03, 6 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.