Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Informativeness 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 00:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Informativeness paradox[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable (and lacks references). I can find a handful of Google hits, but none that appears to describe what it is - the few I found talk of it in the context of economics, which doesn't appear to be relevant to this. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incomprehensible; only a putative example is given, while the paradox it is supposed to exemplify remains undefined. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Lambiam 13:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to paradox wouldn't do any harm (they're cheap); or delete - I don't mind which; it doesn't appear notable, and is just a quote or whatever. Not enough to substantiate an article Chzz ► 14:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such a redirect would grossly violate the principle of least astonishment for redirect targets; the redirected user would search in vain for informativeness paradox on the target page (and if they are Wikipedia-savvy possibly even search back in older revisions) and end up being more frustrated than in the case of immediate search failure. --Lambiam 09:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article's author has commented on the article Talk page - I've pointed them over here, but the comment is there in case they don't join us. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism, WP:MADEUP AndrewWTaylor (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2011 (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.