Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. W. Russell'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. Wizardman 17:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

E. W. Russell's Paradox
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Is this original research, and even if not, is this notable? Avi (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clarifying position, especially after what seems to be more original research was added. -- Avi (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * no, Delete user:SE7User_talk:SE7/Special:Contributions/SE7 17:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete although the issue of whether Christian legislators are more likely to favour military action is an interesting one, I can't find sufficient sources that discuss this issue as E. W. Russell's Paradox. Although I'm happy to change my mind if somebody finds one.Nick Connolly (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Modify there is much evidence of notability for E.W. Russell but not much for this 'paradox'. Suggest that MBHiii's proposal is the best solution: Change article to a redirect to E.W.Russell (doesn't currently exist) and include a section on the paradox.Nick Connolly (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * supportive see comment. 123.242.228.103 (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- When someone proposes a new idea, by definition it is not likely to have lots of supporting sources. Moreover, when an idea challenges conventional wisdom (societal values) it may not be popular; that is not a reason for deletion but should be a spur to additional investigation resulting in confirmation or rejection of the idea (hypothesis).-Mver (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you can present some sources of people refering to the idea as "EW Russell's paradox" I'll happily change my mind. I couldn't find any.
 * Reply -- originally from this site. While the article is much the same, I am reasonably confident it is a copy from Wikipedia, and not vice versus.  There was a great deal of development in Feb. 2006 by the original contributor User:Cruise.  I suspect that he, as the principle author, copied the article to his own website (visual statistics seems to be part of "Cruise scientific"). "E. W. Russell's Paradox" is a good name, being a paradox and discovered by Russell. Perhaps the article could be expanded into one about him with "... Paradox" as part(?) -MBHiii (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- E. W. Russell's no light weight. --216.77.231.85 (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

E W Russell & Associates Pty Ltd ADVISORS TO GOVERNMENTS, MINISTERS AND CEOs. LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPECIALISTS. We offer Mastery in Public Management. Click for More Information on: ... http://ewrussell.com/

Amazon.com: E. W. Russell: Books; Nonfiction, Literature & Fiction, Professional & Technical, Science, ... http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=E.%20W.%20Russell&page=1


 * Delete E. W. Russell may not be a lightweight, but that does not mean that every one of Russell's ideas merits a separate article.  It was first proposed in 1971, so it is not a new idea.  If it has not spurred much investigation or interest since then, it is not notable.--FreeKresge (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: another issue is whether it should "spur... investigation or interest"; also note quick list of citations from Google Scholar and dates on article's newly added refs. -216.77.231.85 (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep any article as unique, controversial, and informative as this one. I, for one, am highly interested in it, and further investigation may simply not be necessary, if it stands, as this one apparently does, on its own merits. -86.101.228.131 (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I am truly glad that this article is in Wikipedia as someone needs to be pointing this truth out. It is sufficiently documented and thought provoking to be worth noting. Though true believers in some religions may object, it is an idea highly relevant to the world situation today. Change the name if necessary, but a rose by any other name ... -66.57.53.109 (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Appears to be completely unknown, at least under this name (which I assume was chosen to call to mind Russell's paradox). If E. W. Russell is "no lightweight" (as the commenter from 216.77.231.85 says), then he should have his own article, in which this material can be included. Klausness (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2008 (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.