Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of paradoxes/articles containing paradox not in title 2009-11-14

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Keep. Hut 8.5 17:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of paradoxes/articles containing paradox not in title 2009-11-14


Page designed to aid editors of the Paradox article in finding new articles which are about paradoxes. nice idea, but its now 3 years out of date, no editing of any significance in a long time. this can be freely recreated by searching for the word, no need to preserve this as a talk page addendum. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Subpages. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How does it violate Subpages? The seventh item in the "Allowed uses" section fits the page perfectly. Graham 87 12:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The page is a list of 5615 articles on the English Wikipedia whose body, but not title contained the string "paradox". The page is not relevant to List of paradoxes. The page is not the List of paradoxes article's /to do list, so the seventh item in the "Allowed uses" section doesn't fit at all. The list is 2-1/2 years old, has six What links here links and two of those are this MfD. The page has received six edits from four editors, the last relevant edit being more than a year ago. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, linked to and discussed extensively at Talk:List of paradoxes/Archive 1. I can't think of a good reason to hide the page's content from non-admins. Graham 87 12:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While this is indeed a stale piece of research, we don't to my knowledge have any policy of deleting such things. As Graham87 suggests, this is a key point of discussion in the talk archives for the page in question. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, and I've tagged it as historical. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2012 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.