Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bootstrap paradox: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:19, 17 December 2010

Ontological paradox

Anyone who has seriously studied the philosophical problems of time travel knows that this is not a serious problem discussed in any depth anywhere. No scholarly reference could be found, and this article is purportedly written about a scholarly subject. That's the challenge for someone who wants to keep this article afloat. Godsoflogic (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has seriously studied the philosophical problems of time travel (including people such as Michael Lockwood) would know that the real problem with this article is simply its name, and that the name used in the literature is information paradox/knowledge paradox (more rarely bootstrap paradox). Anyone who was experienced with MediaWiki, furthermore, would know that simple exercise of the page move tool and the editing tool can fix this problem, deletion tool not required. Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I have not read this article sufficiently closely or have mistaken it for something else. I thought that the article purports to be on a different problem than the information paradox-one that deals with material objects instead of information. I agree that the information problem is well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godsoflogic (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know about the "seriousness" of this problem, but it appears notable in fiction as is seen by the extensive list of examples here. Maybe rename to List of fictional portrayals of time travel paradoxes or something.--Pontificalibus (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with that last. Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing is most definitely not the way to go, here. Uncle G (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 **I disagree with that last.  [[User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing|Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing]] is most definitely not the way to go, here.  [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''':  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy|list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 01:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)</small>
+*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''':  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science|list of Science-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 01:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)</small>