Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complexity paradox

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jergling (talk | contribs) at 22:03, 19 September 2016 (→Complexity paradox: Delete.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Complexity paradox

Complexity paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, started as a spam page, and now that the spamlinks have been removed, has no citations at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 75% delete It's not a complete invention of that blog, at least; found one article that also uses the term in this regard [1], but no more than that. Certainly doesn't seem to be in widespread use and sources actually defining it seem absent.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A trivial or common-sense concept given a wordy title doesn't make it noteworthy. The phenomenon described here has little to do with complexity, and it is not a paradox. It's just someone's attempt at a witty observation. I wouldn't call it spam, though. Jergling (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Complexity_paradox&oldid=740238680"