Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russ's Paradox

Looks like a joke to me. --Edcolins 21:41, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * The "rule" is frequently cited (although the wording differs), but rarely named. The attribution to Mr. Williams seems dubious. No vote: there doesn't seem to be much to say about it, although it comes up often.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: This has the value, to me, of a mass forwarded e-mail joke.  Sorry to be mean, but it's neither a paradox nor clever, IMO, and it belongs more to the Jargon File's purview than ours. Geogre 00:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. A dubious claim, I'll revise my vote if it can substantiated. This article was speedied in July when created by an anon, almost identical contents so presumably the same person (unless it's a copyvio). No user page or other contributions yet. I'll leave them a greeting. Andrewa 01:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * And were the alleged Mr. Williams' spelling mistakes ironic? Regardless, delete. Fire Star 05:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete This may be something that many people have noticed, but I doubt it is commonly referred to as Russ's Paradox. Google gives 2 links, one two a copy of this page, and one to something completely different. Average Earthman 08:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. A frequently-noted circumstance, but unnamed as far as I know, and in the league of "Hey, did you notice..." at best. Denni &#9775; 01:05, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
 * Delete, for reasons given above. Josh Cherry 02:09, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete; the attribution to me (Russ Williams) is true, but I didn't create the page and have no pretensions that the quote is any sort of deep important observation or commonly attributed to me. For the curious: the spelling mistakes were introduced as intentional irony by the page creator.
 * Delte. Lacrimosus 00:30, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)