Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan's Dilemma


 * 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Bryan's Dilemma
Was tagged as a speedy by User:Bachrach44 with reason: hoax. But that isn't a CSD so I'm listing here. Just nominating for the moment.
 * Delete as hoax or OR. Not a speedy, but very deletable. PJM 22:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - unverifiable. I have asked the author for references on the talk page. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete If you check the page's history you'll see it was frequently referred to as a paradox. "Bryan's Dilemma" produces only 9 hits in google, none of which are relvant, and "Bryan's paradox" produces none. previous versions also state it was created by Bryan Rosario, who also results in no hits with the word dilemma or paradox. --Bachrach44 22:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - I might change my mind if there's evidence, as it sounds interesting enough, but I'm leaning towards hoax at this stage. If its real and can be proven to be real, then I'll change vote to keep. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 06:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * why? By asking for refrences, you're employing an Ad Populum fallacy. Just because this hasn't been picked up by mainstream philosophers, it doesn't mean that it's any less of a dilemma. Judge it on its own merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.239.186.98 (talk • contribs)
 * Because wikipedia is not for promoting non-notable subjects. Something must first be notable in order to be documented by wikipedia. While it may have it's own merits, there is no place for it here until it is picked up by mainstream philosophers. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We most distinctly do not judge anything based on it's merits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook, and therefore includes articles on things which are notable, Whether or not those things are "good" or "bad". For example, we have discussions of various models of the atom which we currently believe are false. Were we to judge these based on their merits we'd find them lacking, but they're included because they're notable. --Bachrach44 14:49, 7 December 2005 (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.