Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loyer'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. Tiptoety talk 23:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Loyer&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is simply a mathematical error, as I explained in detail on the article's talk page. It attributes the idea to Milton Loyer (hence the name). Milton Loyer has recanted after reading my explanation on the article's talk page. I waited a long time before listing this for deletion because the creator of the article, Gknauth, after acknowledging the error, said he would replace the content. At first he said he would do this within 24 hours, then in a later exchange of email suggested it would be done soon (less specific). Some time has gone by with no progress on this. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The "paradox" seems to be based on confusing a/b + c/d with (a+c)/(b+d). And it has no reliable source. r.e.b. (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nom —3mta3 (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I initially proposed deleting this just over a month ago on the grounds that it was a non-notable neologism with 0 google hits. The latter is no longer literally true thanks mainly to wikipedia scraper sites, but the only non-wikipedia derived hit is a brief report of a talk given by Milton Loyer and clearly not enough to establish notability. (My thanks to Michael Hardy for explaining the mathematical error in detail, corresponding with the author and bringing this to AfD). Qwfp (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete following the conversation on the talk page it now seems that papers author now acknowledges there was a mathematical error so there is not really a paradox and hence no need to article. I came very close to closing it early per WP:SNOW but though it best to give Gknauth a chance to respond.--Salix (talk): 09:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm not sure that "SNOW" is ever a reasonable thing. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On its own, I don't think "being wrong" would always be enough to delete (compare the article about flat-earth theory). But looking at it holistically I don't think we should have an article on this particular topic; delete it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable; and it's wrong, so changes chances are good it will never be notable. Ozob (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. You must have meant "chances" where you wrote "changes".  I wondered what you were saying the first time I read it. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did, thank you. Ozob (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think it would be a good fallacy if it was written up properly somewhere else and then it might make it as notable enough for wiki. However currently it is just a mistake and wiki is not for original research. Dmcq (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even a paradox. Just a non-notable fallacy. Btyner (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've just notified Gknauth by email that if he's actually got some content that should replace what's currently in the article, he should move fast since this discussion will get closed in due course. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. After reviewing all the comments, and since Loyer himself admits that Michael Hardy is right, and I don't have anything to refute that, I go along with deletion.  Part of me thinks that Hardy's refutation of Loyer's apparent paradox should still be recorded somewhere, so that people don't stumble over this again. Gknauth (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, it could be set as an exercise in a textbook. If there's an appropriate place in Wikibooks, there could be a link to it from some article(s) within Wikipedia.  Broadly, the exercise would have two parts: (a) use the law of total probability to show that the conclusion must be wrong (that's the first thing I did after reading the article carefully enough to convince myself that it was really saying what it appeared to be saying); (b) locate the particular error in the reasoning that led to the wrong conclusion (that's the next thing I did after that).  Possibly the two parts could be broken into smaller pieces. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest content of article and talk page is userfied to Gknauth's user namespace before/when the article is deleted, as it now can be since its creator agrees and the only other contributor is the nominator. Qwfp (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a good chance this could someday become an article (and that chance looks very slim from the discussion here), the article should be deleted, not moved to user space. The creator is free to put the content on any other website, of course. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:37, 11 May 2009 (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.