Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The acorn 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 Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The acorn paradox

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am making this nomination on behalf of 85.178.217.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The reason stated is:

The topic is not notable in any way. No search results not originating here.

Procedural nomination: I express no opinion. JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What a shame that three of us jumped in to PROD without noticing it had already been dePRODded and thus ineligible. To echo my comment there, this particular example looks to be specific to the book The Glimmering Time. If we had an article for that title a redirect might make sense, but we don't. Fails WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow tends to obscure the ground. ;) 85.178.200.49 (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a run of the mill time travel paradox with nothing to lend it notability. Artw (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable example of a time travel paradox. There don't seem to be any sources online that discuss this. The book looks like it might have been self-published, which means it's an uphill battle to get any commentary. Since there's no commentary on the subject, a merge is inappropriate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2015 (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.