Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nihilist 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 Is now moot. Specifically no consensus to retain this article and no consensus to delete it and a redirect seems around the right place Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilist paradox

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Withdraw nomination: "paradox of nihilism" yields a handful of solid hits on Google Scholar, and one on Scirus. The Smarandache source suffices for a redirect to a multi-stub at paradox of nihilism. Paradoctor (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to remark that these scholarly sources describe wildly diverging notions under that moniker. --Lambiam 23:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Permission granted. ;) That's why I mentioned that "multi-stub" bit. Paradoctor (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a ton of stuff out there about this term and concept (see, for example, [1]), but I'm having trouble finding Wikipedia-style reliable sources; it's mostly just web pages. Give me a little time and I'm sure I can source this article to the point of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There, I added two references to the article. It's still a stub, but it's no longer unsourced, and IMO no longer non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Webster" source is interesting in its own right for me, thanks for diggin it up, but the citation is from Wikipedia, I'm afraid. The other source involves Florentin Smarandache, and I want to see evidence that the "peer reviewers" are not his pals. You might want to read this discussion to understand why I'm skeptical about this one. Paradoctor (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's tricky about the little "WP" establishing that the information in the Webster's thing came from Wikipedia! But I don't understand about Smarandache. He is a real person, a real professor at UNM, so why doesn't his writing count? The nihilist paradox is hinted at here, Nietzsche and Paradox, page 26 ("Nihilism can only be defeated by itself, logic can only be overcome by its own limits") and page 129 ("Nietzsche is and remains paradoxical"), but I didn't see it stated explicitly in that work. Still, I think the concept is well established. --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases, which is unrelated to Miriam-Webster publishing, is well-known for it's highgrading of Wikipedia. --Bejnar (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as if they are deleting the material they quote! ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think closer examination will reveal that Smarandache's print-on-demand book will fail WP:RS. I don't want to say anything that might interest the BLP hit squad, but my personal experience with his work indicates that the book's claim to being peer reviewed should not be taken in good faith. But even if it was, we'd still have only a single primary source. The norm is multiple secondary sources. I'm not much of a fan of notability, but the rules being what they are, I'd like to see at least one good source demonstrably independent of Smarandache. Give me that, and I'll withdraw my nomination. Happy hunting, Paradoctor (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a single usage term referring to an epistemological argument that was highlighted by Decartes in his discussion of an evil genius out to deceive him about the world. It is not a term of art. The paradox is of course just a specific instant of the class of paradoxes that occur through self-referential statements. One of the classics being: Everything in moderation, including moderation. Not worth a redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"his discussion of an evil genius": I'd appreciate a cite very much. Paradoctor (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 04:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete: Normally when something is so concise an idea, with few sources, it lives perfectly well as a section in a larger article. If at some point more sources appear and the section becomes cumbersome, it can be moved to its own article. Perhaps MelanieN would be more qualified than me to decide where to move this material to. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget about me. ;) I would love to create a (series of) WP:SETINDEX articles about paradoxes, but I simply won't have the time in the foreseeable future, i. e. this year. Failing that, it would have to be either with the nihilists, who don't want it, or with List of paradoxes. The problem with the latter is that it is a list of notable paradoxes, and already has more than 200 entries. Also note that Smarandache, source criticism aside, merely lists it, he does not discuss it. Without set index article, this one simply has not enough interest to merit even a redirect. Don't worry about the content, though. It, and a lot of other small bits are safe in my wiki, and will resurface sometime in the future. Paradoctor (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could of course always tuck it away in your user space to remind you to sort it out ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss "safe in my wiki"? ;) But you infected me with the idea that a Wikiproject might make sense. I'll mull about that one a bit. Paradoctor (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero hits on Google scholar; only hit on Google books is self-published. No evidence that this is a notable concept. --Lambiam 18:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has WITHDRAWN the AfD - why on earth has it been relisted? Lugnuts (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an appropriate relist. Other people joined in the argument that it should be deleted, and it was no longer under the nominator's control at that point. Mandsford (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the relist, I would just like to point out that we're now talking about whether or not to have a redirect to paradox of nihilism. Paradoctor (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I guess I hadn't overheard that conversation... Mandsford (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this? Otherwise I'd be missing something, apparently. Paradoctor (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that's missing is the "we're" part in the "we're now talking about whether or not to have a redirect". I gather that you're proposing that the title be moved (changed) and the article kept under a new name, rather than having the article deleted, but nobody else is talking about it. As noted, once other people participate, the subject of the discussion is no longer under any one individual's control. Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know know where you "gathered", but it can't have been from anything I wrote. Sigh. Let me try again:

Independently from any consideration of "nihilist paradox", a search for "paradox of nihilism" yields enough material for a multi-stub at paradox of nihilism. An incoming redirect from nihilist paradox would then be justified by Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects, specifically

"More specific forms of names",
"Related words" and
"Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article".

Delete unless peer-reviewed references to this paradox can be found. It's certainly an obvious argument, made (I'm sure) repeatedly and independently, so I would not be surprised if it's discussed in the literature — but Florentin Smarandache's self-publications don't count. Rewrite and rename Paradoctor's Google Scholar search does show references, but these references seem thus far unrelated to the article. (We should also be careful here, since a brief look suggests at least two or three related but distinct formulations of the paradox: in terms of truth, meaning or worth of one's life as compared to others' lives.) Phiwum (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it a "rewrite", but other than that, this looks to me like what I suggested. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking over the references turned up in the Google scholar search, it's fair to say that the phrase "paradox of nihilism" is not that common, and that it is used differently by each of the authors whose work could be looked at (Aquino, McCarthy, Luhmann, Hegarty). The recently-added source (Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases) is actually drawn from an earlier verison of this article called Nihilist paradox [2], and depends on an overly-simplistic explanation of nihilism (i.e. that nihilists believe that "there are no knowable truths"). I think that what the IP who did the original research on this one in 2004 may have been thinking of was the liar paradox or the Epimenides paradox. Mandsford (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All this has no bearing on this AfD. As long as paradox of nihilism exists, and per the reasons listed two replies up, the redirect is valid. Paradoctor (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request Since the article is now a redirect, the AfD message no longer displays correctly, I think this needs to be fixed somehow.
Comment I suppose that someone can put the deletion tag back up, but after two relists, I think it's more likely that this will be closed as a "no consensus". There's a big difference between a redirect to an article that was already in existence, and moving the title to something different. It would be nice if we could call off a deletion discussion simply by changing the title, and if it were that easy, everybody would be doing it. Only an administrator can close the debate, but I think that everyone has said what they have to say about notability, and the matter is ready for an administrator's decision. Mandsford (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"put the deletion tag back up": It is still there, I didn't remove it. It just isn't displayed anymore.

"call off a deletion discussion simply by changing the title": Huh? If you would please check paradox of nihilism, you'll see that it was written from scratch, and the content owes nothing to what was present at nihilist paradox until now. Besides, I thought consensus was abou exchanging arguments rather than taking sides? Paradoctor (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.