Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden'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.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golden's paradox[edit]

This article merely repeats its listing on List of paradoxes. I challenge whether it needs an article just to repeat this and whether it's notable enough to deserve an article of its own. Would the entry in the list not be another, since it explains the entry? Greggers ^{(t • c)} 17:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that this paradox is actually known by this name anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existence of the paradox is dubious (the assumption that "all questions have answers" looks like a big assumption). Content is unsourced, most likely unverifiable and original thought. If someone have philosophical questions they absoloutely want answered on Wikipedia, they should use the reference desk. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is just a repetition of List of paradoxes.--Ped Admi (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:MADEUP - take your pick. Also, unless I'm mistaken, (if one accepts the premise that all questions have answers) mathematically this is just a rewording of Russell's paradox in a specific set context. Usrnme h8er (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this one was not added to the January 2 AFD list. I have added it to the January 8 list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It begs the question, what policy is this NOT failing. JBsupreme (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP. But now I'm just being facetious. Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a paradox at all. For what it's worth, the premise is that someone asks "What question has no answer?" and another person responds "This question." then, "since all questions have answers" it's a paradox. No, it's an incorrect answer. The rest of it is "Alternatively, if one answered 'Not this question', no paradox exists." If there's an option for no paradox, it's not a paradox. Mandsford (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent nonsense. --Lockley (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2009 (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.