Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Status 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   speedy keep. per nomination withdrawal JForget  00:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Status paradox

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Tagged as unreferenced since November 2008, as neologism since November 2009. Article consists of a dictionary definition only. No references. Google, Google Scholar, Scirus provided no evidence of notability or even usage. no longer applicable Appears to be invention of Paradoctor (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination: Article has been expanded and sourced, the added material indicates that at least a disambiguation page should be in place. Paradoctor (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 23:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Recommend delete. No notability. No references. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 19:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver  seren C 19:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I have added sources that establish notability, per WP:N. Have a nice day. Silver  seren C 19:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, some of the sources seem confused. Regarding the migration article, the circumstances of someone or something being more valuable in one environment than in another isn't a paradox and the author's use of the word "paradox" to describe the situation is incorrect. It isn't paradoxical that snowshoes are more valuable and useful in Greenland than they are in Burundi. As for the African HIV article, the discovery that reality differs from the author's assumptions doesn't amount to a paradox. I'm getting the impression that there are researchers out there who think "paradox" means "irony". —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete pure dictionary definition. I fail to see the relevance of most of the external links, except for the Google Docs link, which is clearly not a RS. Ray  Talk 21:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is the Google Docs link not a reliable source? And the other sources are all various examples of a status paradox. Silver  seren C 21:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Self-published. See the guideline on reliable sources. Best, Ray  Talk 21:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please show me from where it is self-published, because, as I see it, it isn't. It is a paper written in an article for, what I would assume, to be some sort of historical journal, as the source of it leads here, which is a Periodical Archive and Database. Silver  seren C 22:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for imprecise wording - if we can't tell where (or, to be particularly skeptical, if) this was published, we cannot evaluate the reliability of the source. Hence, I consider this unreliable. Furthermore, the coverage of the term inside that particular document was hardly what you could call significant - it merely uses the word, bringing us back to WP:DICDEF. Best, Ray  Talk 03:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because it is a google docs link doesn't make it unreliable. Also, the other sources are from other reliable places, how are they not relevant? Silver  seren C 06:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Google Docs isn't a "source" at all: writing a document on Google Docs confers no more reliability than writing it on a blog or a wiki. The only source here is the author. Do you believe Beatrix Balogh to qualify as a "reliable, third-party, published [source] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? And, by the way, "published" in this sense implies "having a publisher", such as a newspaper known for journalistic integrity or a respected academic publishing house, not in the sense that everything one writes in a blog or a wiki is "published". —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * After this edit, we only need someone speaking Hungarian to confirm that Elsö Század is an academic journal. Paradoctor (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or simply use Google translate. --Lambiam 22:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, wow, that certainly looks notable. Silver  seren C 22:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The concept of "status paradox of migration" seems well established in the literature. It is not clear to me whether that is also true for the other cases of status paradoxes described in this article. It is also not clear to me that these various status paradoxes are all instances of a notable generic concept of "status paradox" as defined in the lede. Unfortunately that definition is so incomprehensible that I can't make out how it relates to the kinds of status paradox described in the various sections; shouldn't the notion of (ascribed?) social status play a role in the definition? --Lambiam 23:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same thing, about whether these are instances of the same generic concept, or whether it's a bunch of people coining the term independently with a variety of senses. I understood the original definition, before the article got expanded, to be a purely set-theoretical concept, an example of which is the set S of all sets don't contain themselves. Is S a member of S? If it is, then it contains itself, violating the requirement for inclusion in S. But then if it doesn't contain itself, then as a set that doesn't contain itself, it is a member of S, so it does contain itself. That's the kind of situation I thought that "status paradox" was meant to refer to. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, the Status Paradox of Migration is fairly close to the definition you're thinking of. Stuck between two classes. But the others complicate things. We might need to end up just making it a disambiguation page and making articles for all the rest, though that doesn't need to be done now. That can always be done after we make the current article longer and we decide it's necessary to do that. Anyways, the nominator withdrew, so this will end up archived soon. Silver  seren C 06:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No need to be so formal, I'll listen to "PD". ;) Anyway, I just found out that there is a more appropriate form: Disambiguation. That leaves us with "mere" content issues. Paradoctor (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2010 (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.