Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wright's paradox

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 Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wright's paradox

A single joke by Steven Wright that has been exatrapolated into a "paradox". The title gets 3 hits. Looks like entirely original research to me. Delete as such. Wickethewok 19:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:OR -- Whpq 19:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --  Nishkid64  ^Talk  19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• A mathematical paradox which happen to be labeled as Wright's paradox. No matter from where a paradox is extrapolated, be it a joke, a race by a tortoise and Achilles or some guy from Crete; a paradox is a paradox. I am well aware of the "No original research" rule, and this one is not. (If it was, I'd not be able to resist naming it after myself) Though I can not verify or give a link to a author or another place that it was published as this paradox was 'picked up' circulating around the campus. A search in Internet does not give even a close result neither to the type of the paradox or to its name. It certainly is an original work but not of the author of the article. Hopefully someone will come forward after seeing it published and claim authorship or a info will emerge latter here or somewhere else. Because the authorship can not be verified it would be bad to delete it from wikipedia just for that reason, as the paradox itself is a solid one and a very fine sample of the nature of geometric progression. Paradoxes don't come by very often and should not be 'killed' so fast when they do. --Otritos 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Because the authorship can not be verified it would be bad to delete it from wikipedia — On the contrary, deleting unverifiable information is good for Wikipedia, and is one of our strongest reasons for deletion. You have just made an excellent case for the deletion of this article. If you want to make a case for keeping, find and cite some sources. Nothing else will do. We insist upon sources, here. Uncle G 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• What is the reason behind the unverifiable information being deleted in wikipedia?--Otritos 21:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Our fundamental goal of creating an encyclopaedia where everything is verifiable by editors and readers. Uncle G 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Unverifiable. -- Fan-1967 22:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then Uncle G, how did The Bible ended up not being deleted? Ok, I know this is not exactly a proper example but my point is this article simply can not be verified for time being, it is unverifiable. Even though as a piece of information it is self evident, it is not something you can sit over and wonder if it's true or not. It is a mathematical demonstration. Just because the author is not known and there is a possibility that he will probably not be known, what is the next step according the wikipedia rules? To delete it? That is, as I said a paradox is a rare phenomenon and to think that one of the few paradoxes of this century does not get to find a place on the wikipedia because no one claims an authorship and a source can not be found Isn't this self defying for the purpose of wikipedia? The only thing that will help the cause for wikipedia with this case is to leave it there as it is and if a verifiable info emerges, good! If not, what is the reason and point of deleting it? I'd like to stress on this again, the article by itself is a unique entry of a paradox. And I am sorry I can't verify or state a source but this does not contradict the core idea behind verification i.e, validity and value as knowledge. It is simply sad to think something as rare as a paradox will have in its early history the fate of not finding a place in the corpus of wikipedia because physically it was not possible to track down an author or source. The best thing to do I think will be to give the article a chance and let it live for at least a month and if no verification can be obtained during that time then do whatever you think is proper.--Otritos 23:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• We have rules, and Verification is #1. This is not a place for original essays, or unsourced material. There are blogs and freeweb pages for that. This is an encyclopedia. Fan-1967 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, and Otritos, please familiarise yourself with the policies here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Expanding the joke just makes it unfunny. And it isn't a paradox. JChap2007 23:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete It certainly isn't. Its just a mildly interesting mathmatical oddity that sounds impressive until the math behind it is explained. More importantly, its connection to Wright is completely unsourced. My father taught me this exact same concept when I was young, but we don't call it Doug's Paradox, do we? - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best to provide a verification. To the users who for some reason imagine the paradox described in the article is not a paradox I just want to say - you guys have a very powerful tool and a huge database right under your fingers. Please use it! Seriously people, do your research before you post a stupid comment on something you don't quite understand. Damn, I can't believe you are voting for deleting the article while you don't even have a clue what paradox is. It is a classical paradox derived from an exponential function describing linear function. Many of the present and Greek paradoxes are based on that. --Otritos 02:01, 30 August 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.