Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan'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.

[edit] Ivan's Paradox

The result was speedy deleted by User:Orangemike (non-admin closure), speedy deletion per Wikipedia:CSD#G1. Ale_Jrb^talk 18:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ivan's Paradox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Original research, no references. (Also trivially refuted, but that's neither here nor there.) Justin Eiler (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete OR. Maralia (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Can we just Speedy this as complete rot? Or at least throw a WP:SNOWball at it? Mangoe (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I just double checked wp:speedy and can not find anything that fits this situation, but I will fire wp:or, wp:NFT, and wp:v at this and keep the snowball rolling. Mstuczynski (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete subject to re-creating the article when author wins Nobel Prize for 2008 mathematical discovery. Mandsford (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, lacks coverage in sources. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete WP:OR.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 11:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Mstuczynski. How many editors does it take to make a snowball? Qwfp (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Added "db-nonsense" with a reference to WP:SNOW and this discussion. Justin Eiler (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2008 (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.