Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drinker 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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn with consensus of keep. TheProject 19:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drinker Paradox[edit]

Nonsense, but funny nonsense with logic. Suggest BJAODN. ES2 14:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My applause...now ,~~Delete~~ keep as long as more sources are added. PJM 14:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In defence of my creation of this article: this is a well-known paradox that is often used in introductury books on first order logic to explain issues related to material implication and excluded middle. It is often discussed in first year courses on symbolic logic. It is also used as a test case for automatic theorem provers. I will find some proper references to support it. Eubulide 14:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the proper thing to do. Please see WP:V. Thanks. PJM 14:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending Eubulide's added sources -- actually, I could probably go out and find some books myself. I'm not entirely certain, but I believe I've heard this one before, and it's definitely legitimate. TheProject 15:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added two references and the attribution. I know the paradox is by Smullyan but I don't know in which of his many books it is found. I am trying to find out, then I will add the original reference. Eubulide 15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~pending sources~~ sources referenced. It's an interesting seeming paradox, so as long as it can be shown that it's not original research, it's a fine addition to the WP. AnonEMouse 16:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, changing to Keep now that sources have been referenced. It looked like a joke to me--but a joke used in multiple textbooks is definitely notable. ES2 18:16, 11 May 2006 (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.