Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary'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.  Lara  ❤  Love  18:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Gary&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Prodded, prod disputed by an IP who is probably the creator. It's OR and, well, this. Delete. UsaSatsui (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pure silliness, and the stark black and white images mark it out as some sort of odd joke. Possibly a candidate for Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense. Red  Zion X 03:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that you view this article as silly shows that you are a mediocre mind. Perhaps if you thought about it more deeply you would see the relevance and truth in this article. This article explains more about existence itself more than any other article listed on this web site regarding the matter and if you still do not believe this rational message then you can personally verify my claims by comparing other articles consisting of this matter to this article. AnaxMcShane (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. Publish your thoughts elsewhere, and get reliable sources to discuss them in depth so that this paradox is notable. Until then, it does not belong on Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 04:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Thinly referenced, questionable notability and, as the author acknowledges here, it is original research. WWGB (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This paradox proves the big bang could have never occurred the way it is currently explained and that black holes do not function the way they are currently explained!

The article is notable, published and cited and your mediocrities for deleting this article will not go unnoticed. AnaxMcShane (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It has? Where?  --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The work has been published here ... yesterday! WWGB (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Original research. Gary's website does not count as a source for the purpose of asserting the notability of Gary's Paradox. Maxamegalon2000 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Original research as admitted to by the author. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I make no judgment on the quality of the philosophy, but the author of the page has said frankly on the article talk page that it is original research - something he made up one day. Snalwibma (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion does not count as a notable source for the purpose of you personally asserting that self assertions are not notable. You contradicted yourself by writing what you wrote, Maxamegalon. AnaxMcShane (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete mediocre crap in the article, mediocre insults from the creator, overall just plain crap. Get it out of here quickly. JuJube (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To: JuJube, this coming from someone who favors Yu-Gi-Oh over truth!

You seem to embrace the publishings of menial things such as irrelevant movies and movie plots which are seen as menial by the vast majority of the scientific populace over this article?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnaxMcShane (talk • contribs) 07:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the scientific populace, has this paradox been cited in any peer-reviewed scientific journals? It looks like you posted it to your own website, but please understand that Wikipedia is not a place to advance new ideas or research (we're more geared toward presenting general information regarding ideas and memes which are already established and known). You're free to post on your website and pursue this hypothesis as you like, but please note that Wikipedia is not your website, and does have standards for inclusion. Those standards may include elements of popular culture, but I don't see how that's relevant here -- again, Wikipedia's articles, in particular scientific articles, are not a good place to advance fundamentally new thought. This is not meant to imply that you or your work are at all less important or meaningful than topics which we do cover, only that we are geared in a different direction than you may have anticipated. – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they are standards which are double-standard and many of you seem to break the 'standard' rules that Wikipedia has set. AnaxMcShane (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, article has fairly poor grasp of existing work on the topic (such as Godels incompleteness theorems), and I suspect the author is trying to re-create it as Original Research, citing his own site for a cite. Don't we have a CSD for this? Like, maybe, it makes no assertions of notability, it's made up, and it's self-published "research"? Ronabop (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The creator should be blocked for blatant insulting of other editors as evidenced right here. JuJube (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To: Ronabop, your opinions are your own of course, but can neither be proven or verified. You have written your opinion of my 'poor grasp', but it is only your opinion and perhaps it is you that does not grasp Kurt Godel's theorems. "When arguing with a fool be sure he is not similarly engaged." AnaxMcShane (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You are right. Closed reason and logic systems cannot be proven, or verified, within themselves. That's the problem with the article's foundations, and the last ~100 years of work on this topic. It's pretty much Jr. High Philosophy 101. If you re-read Gödel, or maybe Hofsteader's work on the topic (it's a bit more accessible) perhaps you can find some new and interesting boundaries which are not already known and published. Once they are published in credible journals, I'd love to see them here! Ronabop (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete clear violation of WP:OR (though it's entertaining for me to read the concept of nothingness and void :-). Dekisugi (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To: Ranobop, you cannot prove that you or existence exists; Jr. High Philosophy? I was never able to attend school, I had to teach myself and I have never truly read any of Godel's works thoroughly enough to base any thing on them. AnaxMcShane (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't prove existence exists, but I can find enough sources to write an article about it. Myself or Ranobop, though...well, not about me. Won't speak for others.  As I have said before, the thresshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is third-party sources independent of the subject, and what people other than the "creator" of the subject have written.  Not whether or not something is real or not. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete in the absence of reliable sources. The fact that the author of the article and of the theory are one and the same is troubling as well, simply because the author is not a reliable, independent source. Once the theory is discussed elsewhere (books, journals, articles, etc), then it might be a candidate for an article. Also, to AnaxMcShane, I would strongly urge you to limit your discussion to the concerns voiced by editors. Implying that other editors are fools, questioning their motives, and dismissing their concerns due to their other interests is not a good way to make your case for keeping the article. I would suggest that you have a look at WP:CIVIL, which requires editors here to act civilly with one another, and WP:AGF, which requires editors to assume that other editors are working with the same goals in mind - to improve the project. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Silly original research unsupported by reliable sources. Per Maxa, there's no reliable peer-reviewed scientific or philosophical journal supporting these assertions. Consider salting this article. Majoreditor (talk) 16:05, 31 January 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.