Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portoesque 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 was speedy deletion under CSD G3 - Vianello (Talk) 21:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portoesque_logic[edit]

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

PROD removed, probably a hoax. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original PROD reason: Article is entirely unreferenced, and there are no relevant Google hits, Google scholar hits, or Google books hits. Moreover, the article is fairly devoid of meaningful content to the point of being borderline nonsense. I strongly suspect it is an intentional hoax, and if not then it is certainly original research. The PROD should never have even been removed: deletion is not even remotely controversial. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even a Google search on "Portoesque" found nothing even remotely relevant. At best it is non-notable, at worst a hoax. - Bilby (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't exactly call it a hoax because it doesn't say anything clearly false, but I do think it's a put-on. Could be one of Brendan's friends "winding him up" as our Aussie brethren say? Anyway we don't really need to know; there aren't any available sources and the only actual content is covered at principle of explosion. --Trovatore (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the search engine test, and one of the results for "Brendan Porto" suggests that this is a student joke. Paradoctor (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious nonsense/joke/lame hoax article. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax. Looks like Paraconsistent logic with a lot of claptrap thrown in. Hairhorn (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3 hoax or A7 unremarkable person. Or failing those, delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total nonsense, unfortunately not WP:CSD#G1 because it might not be total nonsense for everybody. You cannot base a logic on a contradicting axiom because (as the article rightly states) everything can be concluded from that. --Pgallert (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, at the very least, entirely non-notable. This Google search shows nothing that uses the word "portoesque" as referring to this other than this article. The article is nonsense. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant hoax. Googling "Brendan Porto hoax" finds [1] which identifies the purported founder of Portoesque logic as "Trained from birth in secrecy under the Italian mafia, Brendan was a master assassin and violin virtuoso by the age of 7. He became a stone-faced hitman, serving only to eliminate the enemies of the family", etc. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:33, 12 July 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.