Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Whittler'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. (aeropagitica) 10:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The Whittler's Paradox

I can't find any reference to this paradox. Not a single hit on Google. References not provided despite mention of 'critics'. {context} and {prod} removed without comment. Deletion on grounds of WP:NFT? Marasmusine 21:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:NOTABLE. Hello32020 22:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Something like this should leave a Google trace. Espresso Addict 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:OR. ColourBurst 04:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above and WP:NOT. Wryspy 19:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not only OR, but also nonsense. The first knives (for whittling) were made of flint, which gets quite sharp by being chipped with other stones that can be far duller. Similarly, dropping a very dull glass on a hard floor increases the number of very sharp objects in the world rather easily. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is actually a parodox featured in a good number of philosophy texts. It's also sometimes refered to as "The Idiot's Parodox," that is, one cannot become smarter than his smartest teacher, thus, as time goes on, the population becomes progressively dumber. It is also sometimes refered to in Artifical Intelligence texts regarding the question of whether an intelligent program can be created by an inferior intelligence. I'd hate to see this article deleted because of your majority; if it helps, I'll offer to add context when I get a chance (I'm very busy right now). Bristow
• Keep this article. I could also do my best to look through my old philosophy books for references to it. I majored in philosophy four years ago and it is indeed a genuine area of epistomology. It might be called a few other things though. Maybe we should keep on the lookout for other names of the parodox (it is not uncommon for paradoxes to have multiple names. Arrowoftime 01:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete I think a more encyclopedic entry could be written about the "Idiot's Paradox". Though I have to admit I got a chuckle out of the one line "Controvery" and "Rebuttal". All it needs is for the rebuttal to include "Oh but Grasshopper..." Agne 20:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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.