Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bootstrap paradox in fiction (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. I strongly suggest that discussion of a possible merge continue on the relevant talk pages. Given the valid point this paradox only exists in fiction it could be argued that this is a WP:FORK but since no participants brought that up during the debate it was not considered when closing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bootstrap paradox in fiction

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bootstrap paradox in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination for editor. They should post their reasoning shortly. I am neutral. Ravendrop 01:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about the whole article, the main article it is attached to lists a few examples from fiction in order to demonstrate Bootstrap paradoxs, but this child article is just a list that serves no purpose than a reposistory for fandom to put everything they can find into it, I might as well start a list of "real world cities referenced in fiction" it would be equally useful/pointless and would be equally endless for no apparent gain Jasonfward (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure the topic is notable, and the main Bootstrap Paradox article covers that, so why is a huge list that will grow forever and increasingly irrelevant examples of any use? Jasonfward (talk) 09:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not really what an encyclopedia should be about, however it serves a good purpose of providing an outlet for fandom from the other page. No one is forced to wade through all the examples. Borock (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is an elaboration of the list in the article Bootstrap paradox, and provides a place for people to add new examples, rather than adding them to the article itself. I've heard the term used to explain the more proper term, "ontological paradox", but don't have a source other than the Heinlein short's title. It's fascinating to draw out the timelines and activities of the lives of the characters in that and in his ... All you Zombies. htom (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe what Im reading here, Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia of everything, the article you refer to is illustrated very well with many examples already, I just don't see how there is any need at all for a place for fans to keep adding more, how or why is an ever growing list of examples from fiction in anyway noteable Jasonfward (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the meanings of "encyclopedic" is "comprehensive." Provided this is limited to notable works of fiction that make some substantive use of this paradox (i.e., not a mere reference or disposable Family Guy-style cutaway gag), then it's not only a good complement to Bootstrap paradox, but an index of articles that make use of the same concept. I see no good reason not to expand that from the few examples given in the parent article, because this isn't so commonplace as to make the list completely trivial, indiscriminate, or meaningless. postdlf (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I just don't see how the article contributes anything, it neither explains the paradox, its too long to illustrative and I cannot for the life of imagine how anyone would find the article useful, it is as far as I can tell, just a place for fans to post their latest spot of the paradox in their favourite fiction, nothing anyone has said here addresses why or how the article is notable at all, and right now I really don't think it is. Jasonfward (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Usefulness would be to an author, trying to create a new form of the paradox; a list of forms already used would be very useful. htom (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A serious problem with this list is that it is mostly original research. The list should be pruned back to notable examples only: examples that are discussed by reliable secondary sources and identified by these sources as being instances of the bootstrap paradox. Pruned that way, the remaining list will very likely have a manageable length and can be put back in the main article where it came from, Bootstrap paradox.  --Lambiam 01:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • commentSecond party reviewers that you want to cite probably won't mention that the bootstrap paradox is involved because it would be considered a spoiler. They have different rules than Wikipedia has about spoiling mentions. htom (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary, reviewers routinely give away the plot. For the notable examples on the list, it isn't that hard to find secondary sources explicitly stating that the plot hinges on a time-travel paradox; for example, for The Technicolor Time Machine, in the book Harry Harrison by Leon E. Stover, and for The End of Eternity, in the book Isaac Asimov by William F. Touponce.  --Lambiam 19:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment above. I don't agree with Lambiam that it should be pruned only to those works whose use of this concept are noted in secondary sourcing. If the work of fiction has an article and it is verifiable that it makes substantive use of this concept (even if only from the work of fiction itself), then it belongs on the list. But that's a matter for normal editing and discussion to resolve, because AFD is not cleanup. postdlf (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can see, everything at the entry for Back to the Future after the one reference given there is original research. The speculative resolution of the paradox offered there that possibly Chuck Berry was not directly inspired, or that the creator is a Chuck Berry of another universe, has an ubernerd quality to it. We should keep such OR out by only allowing content that can be sourced to reliable secondary sources.  --Lambiam 19:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violation of WP:SYNT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is literally a random list of junk. Jtrainor (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate unsourced lists of "X in fiction" are better suited to TV Tropes than to Wikipedia. This is a mere collection of trivia, not an encyclopedia article. Besides, while the Bootstrap paradox may be notable, the topic of "Bootstrap paradox in fiction" is not.  Sandstein  21:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Joseph Fox 01:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge (with culling) to Bootstrap paradox - if it's not WP:INDISCRIMINATE not notable original research, it's an unnecessary WP:UNDUE WP:SPLIT
  • comment The Bootstrap Paradox, as far as it is known, exists only in fiction. One person's mere collection is another's informative, useful, discriminated data collected into handy list form. There are no real examples of the Bootstrap Paradox to put into a list, they're going to have to be fiction. htom (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seconding Serendipodous' argument. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 16:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge So what's the point? Numerous fictional examples were given here [1] to describe the theory. No further martial from works of fiction is needed. The article appears redundant, meaning far too much of the "same". I would comment that the sources presented do appear noteworthy as second and tertiary sources for the material, though works of fiction. Perhaps more material needs to be added of a scientific nature to support the article bootstrap paradox. Your contribution(s) has not gone unnoticed. I would like to thank the Arthur(s) for their determined and persistent thorough efforts that might be applies elsewhere.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is I don't want to spend the rest of eternity pruning other people's additions and then having to justify my completely arbitrary selections on the talk page to affronted contibutors. And don't say "Then don't", because if I don't, all that will happen is the original page will just get AfD'd again. Serendipodous 18:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just one example: the paradox involving Chuck Berry is described here. -- 202.124.72.36 (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bootstrap_paradox_in_fiction_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1073126159"