Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meiburg'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. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Meiburg's paradox

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Google/Book/Scholar searches for "Meiburg's paradox" return nothing; content already covered (IMHO better) in Two envelopes problem Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -  The   Magnificentist  12:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is an outstanding Keep vote who's caster has not yet responded, so I don't want to NAC this as no consensus. As this was on yesterday's Old Afd list, and no one took care of it, I am doing the final resisting, getting into the 3rd category usually brings in editors.
 * Delete. Neither the two sources, nor any other reliable publication that I can find, mention this by this name. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – I can't find any evidence that this idea is actually called by this name. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: the nomination's assertion that the paradox is equivalent to Two envelopes problem is not at all obvious. Seems like a different thing to me, anyhow. -- do  ncr  am  02:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, tentatively. Seems like it can/should be tagged for more specific sourcing.  It cites an edited volume on Agent-Based Modeling which is available in a PDF online, but the PDF is not searchable and I don't see which article in the volume covers the topic:  a page number would make all the difference!  And perhaps the name of the paradox is an issue. -- do  ncr  am  02:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – I'm able to Ctrl-F my way through the book (although this might miss text buried within images, etc.). I found 5 instances of the word "paradox" (pages 10, 154, 315, 424 and 732); none of them look relevant. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  02:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as other !voters have noted, no references use this name. The idea that infinite probability distributions cause paradoxes is discussed sufficiently at Two envelopes problem (and more generally at St. Petersburg paradox) and no merge/redirect is needed. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - the references are not to this problem, in the article, they are used to support contextual statemetns (I'm pretty sure this is true, based on ctrl-f, reading the abstract and skimming, looking in the index, etc). Also, I don't find any Meiburg's doing work in optimal stopping or game theory. Perhaps this is a folk theorem, but it fails WP:V. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:41, 14 August 2017 (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.