Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actual infinite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Actual infinite

Christian evangelism. Original research, and a pointless fork of Infinity. -- Zarquon 08:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete —Ashley Y 10:29, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • So incredibly needs to be deleted, I'm just sorry that speedy delete doesn't seem to cover this. DreamGuy 21:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, deep thoughts (also faulty logic, but that's not a criterion for deletion). — Ливай | ☺ 00:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless fork. Megan1967 01:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, sophomoric deep thoughts used to prop up a religious ad. Wyss 04:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete essay/OR/soapboxing. Gazpacho 09:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all POV forks. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV essay. I love articles that start with (article name) cannot exist. Maybe it should belong in the NonExistantWiki (NEW). --Deathphoenix 20:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, personal essay, cannot be made NPOV. "Possible-probable, my black hen/She lays eggs in the Relative When/She doesn't lay eggs in the Positive Now/Because she's unable to postulate how." (—Fredrick WInsor, A Space Child's Mother Goose) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sophomoric essay, obscure joke or silly soapboxing? I leave it to the reader to decide. Edeans 04:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, this concept comes from a semi-famous published essay which attempts to justify theism by (among other things) distinguishing between a "potential infinite" (such as those dealing with Zeno's paradox) and an "actual infinite". If I can find the essay and the author, maybe I'll try removing all the POV and reworking the article to explain what the concept is, who first proposed it, what it tries to prove, possible logical fallacies inherent in it, etc. Jeff 21:56, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- give Lunatic Fringe a chance to fix it up as he suggests.--Christofurio 22:09, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think I'm going to get around to doing this (or at least not anytime soon). I say to delete the article in the meantime. --Jeff 19:47, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)