Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob logic

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob logic

Looked like nonsense, but I did find some references to this term. In which case it should probably be transwikied. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki as per nom. -- Grafikm_fr 16:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per nom, although it desperately needs to be cleaned up. It looked like nonsense to me too, that's why it had db tags before. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Vote changed, see below
• Comment What wiki is it to be transwikied to? I assume Wiktionary... WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • And, also, why put it up on AfD? If the nomination wants it transwikied, {{Move to Wiktionary}} would be the proper template... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I almost speedied it, but as it is real but does smell of neologism I figured I'd let everyone here decide. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- The article was created by a user whose only edit was the creation of an empty article. Further edits were by an anonymous user. Although there are some google hits, they do not appear related to whatever is described here. Most relate to the logic of one or another person who happens to be called Bob -- all different Bobs. How do we know this is not all made up, in which case we don't want to pollute Wiktionary, Wikisource or any Wiki* with this? Note that Bob Logic is a character in Pierce Egan's novel Life in London, or The Day and Night Scenes of Jerry Hawthorn Esq. and his Elegant Friend Corinthian Tom. For the record, for most types of lotteries buying a second ticket will double your chances of winning. Lambiam^Talk 17:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Lambiam's new evidence. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It sounds like another definition for "Magical Thinking".Pat Payne 18:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign)
• Delete per WP:NEO.--Isotope23 19:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. I also don't understand the part which says "the purchase of a second lottery ticket does not increase your chance of winning by two" because "your chance of winning only increases by a miniscule amount and so it makes sense to purchase only one ticket": buying two lottery tickets does double your chance of winning; it's just that your original chance of winning was so absurdly small that even twice that number is a waste of money. --Saforrest 22:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor quibble. I've played in lotteries when the expected net gain was positive (because of an extremely high jackpot buld-up), in which case it is supposedly rational to play. I won so much that I can now spend all my time on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. I won nothing. Needless to say, that did nothing to increase my confidence in rational decisions :) —Lambiam^Talk 00:04, 22 April 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.