Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyson's eternal intelligence


 * 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   no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Dyson's eternal intelligence

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete or Merge into Infinite Stub. Single source. Article is basically just an example of a broad philosophic concept: That if you have a supply of something, and continuously reduce it by half, then, in theory, you will never run out. The supply will be endless. Should be deleted or merged into a broader concept of eternal or infinite. The Eskimo (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable source discusses tbis term, which let my think, that Dyson made it up one day. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  12:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The reliable source is the published paper that presented this concept. The journal in which it was published is a major journal.  Yes it is a "trivial" concept . . . once you think of it.  If it must be deleted, it should be merged into the Freeman Dyson article.  Samw (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Trivial but notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is much more than "reducing something continuously by half" - the main idea is correlating the energy consumption with the cooling of the universe. For a detailed explanation, see Paul Davies: The Last Three Minutes, chapter 8. Yrtgm (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to an appropriate article. This is basically a concept presented in a single paper, which according to a Google Scholar search has been cited by others 218 times in the 30 years since it was published. That is significant enough to warrant inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia, but not enough for its own article. Incidentally, the abstract of the paper does not seem to support the definition given at the Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2010 (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.