User talk:Explorer2909

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! ... disco spinster   talk  02:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Articles for deletion nomination of A million dollar paradox
I have nominated A million dollar paradox, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/A million dollar paradox. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ... disco spinster   talk  02:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: A million dollar paradox
I have already submitted the article for discussion at Articles for deletion/A million dollar paradox, so any objections you have to deleting it should be raised there.

I would like to point out, however, that the reason I gave for deletion is that the theory is non-notable by Wikipedia's criteria — that is, it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I do not make any judgement on the validity of the theory itself.

You say that pointing out a paradox is not "original thought", but Wikipedia does not necessarily make that distinction. From the page No Original Research:

"[Original thought] includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."

So even though the facts that compose the paradox are common knowledge in physics, apparently nobody else has pointed this out except Mr Thakur, and he has only done so in venues that are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia.

Also, you said that the book The Nature of Reality is not self-published; according to several sources, the publisher is Quality Publishing, for which I can find very little information. ... disco spinster   talk  15:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)