Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of all Wikipedia lists that do not contain themselves

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of all Wikipedia lists that do not contain themselves was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

What the heck? Delete this nonsense. RickK 23:49, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, please delete. You beat me by about 15 seconds, Rick. Joyous 23:51, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • As I pointed out in the discussion page, this list may even have problems on a fundamental logic level. Not sure if that matters for deletion or not. Factitious 00:02, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Funny but not serious. VeryVerily 00:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Um, did anyone bother to ask the author about this to see their intent? *checks* Nope, another all-too-hasty VFD. Keep until the originator has spoken. Stop biting the newcomers. -- Netoholic @ 00:08, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
    • Why would we need to consult the author? VeryVerily 00:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Netoholic, this is a very obvious joke article, see my comments below. - RedWordSmith 03:01, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • So we're not supposed to list anything on VfD until the author gives us permission? Sheesh, Neto, you really ARE trying to subvert VfD, aren't you? RickK 05:10, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • If by "subvert VfD" you mean that I want to encourage hasty deletionists to stop trolling and try to actually work with other editors, then yes. I think you'd bothered to write a quick note to the author, they may have given more information - maybe even confirmed it was a joke. As you can see below, the author was contacted and commented on it. That's what friendly collaboration is all about. Try it sometimes, Rick. -- Netoholic @ 00:19, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
  • I'd say delete unless someone can tell me whether the article belongs in its own category. --jpgordon {yammer} 00:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I think it clearly does, since the article is a list that doesn't contain itself. Factitious 00:57, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Wikimedia ought to have a space for writers of fiction and/or humor. However, this is a bit confusing. I'll second Netoholic's recommendation. Keep until we have contacted the author. Rickyrab 00:14, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not add to BJAODN, creator's contributions have mostly been user-page vandalism, don't encourage him. —Stormie 00:26, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, the only user page he's modified is mine, and that wasn't technically vandalism, since he was attempting to add useful information. Factitious 00:57, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeesh. Delete. —tregoweth 00:32, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd say BJAODN, but only the actual title is funny. I think I hear a paradox rustling. -- DrBob 00:33, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or redirect to Paradox? Nonsense. Practical joke. Not encyclopedic. Constructed perhaps to see whether an edit war will develop as people alternately add and remove "List of all Wikipedia lists that do not contain themselves" from the list? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • And you almost beat me to my suggestion: redirect to Russell's paradox (don't bother merging content). That redirect would constitute an excellent (and I think appropriate) Nihilartikel. -- Jmabel 00:35, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • The Nihilartikel page says it's a "deliberately fictitious entry". Do we want to add deliberately fictitious information? Don't redirect. Factitious 00:57, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • The Nihilartikel page also explains that, like trap streets, these are very useful in proving mechanical infringement of intellectual property. A redirect like this would be a particularly harmless form of this, but comparably useful. -- Jmabel 06:51, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and not BJAODN: lacks originality; known for at least a century in Set theory. Mikkalai 00:49, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • BTW, it is a misfire: it doesn't pose paradox, since wikipedia inherently allows incomplete lists. Mikkalai 00:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • So there aren't any logical problems with it? That's surprising, but in that case, Keep. Factitious 00:57, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • As others have noted, from Russell's paradox: "...Russell's paradox proves that the Wikipedia entry on List of all Wikipedia lists that do not contain themselves must be either incomplete (if it does not list itself) or incorrect (if it does)." That text, IIRC, has been there for a while. Delete. - RedWordSmith 03:01, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • That text has been there for a while, but it didn't link to the page in question until recently, when I wikified it. Factitious 03:21, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and then remove the quoted paragraph from Russell's paradox. JamesMLane 04:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I thought Wikipedia was the source of all truth. This list must be completely accurate. Implode Universe. Or, failing that, Delete. -- WOT 04:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. WP is not a suicide pact. --Jerzy(t) 05:22, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
  • Keep love it. Wolfman 05:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I left a note on User:Posiduck's talk page. He's the author of this list. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:11, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Pointless, and contributes nothing to the project. Delete. --Slowking Man 06:32, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Marginal BJAODN. No big deal. Andrewa 06:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an illustration of an important point. The Recycling Troll 07:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Paradoxes are funny. And this is a perfect example of Russell's. Unfortunately, WP is not a joke book; Delete and possibly BJAODN. Kinitawowi 08:22, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • It is a misfire: it doesn't pose paradox, since wikipedia inherently allows incomplete lists. Mikkalai 00:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Stop it, it's silly. Delete. Average Earthman 11:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • While I guess I appreciate that many of you found humor in my entry, I was just trying to provide a concrete example of russell's paradox for easier understanding. I thought it would help for people to be able to actually have the list in front of them, and think about whether or not it should be an entry for itself. Sorry to cause so much of a disturbance. Posiduck 12:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Excellent idea, very questionable implementation. I've added mini-lists to the Paradox page itself as an illustration. - RedWordSmith 18:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • It is a misfire: it doesn't pose paradox, since wikipedia inherently allows incomplete lists. What is more, it is misleading in terms of explaining the nature of Russel's paradox. Mikkalai 00:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stupid joke. --Improv 18:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: This page is not importent and is un-needed and dusent make eny sence,, and enyways, it is imposible to no wether or not the list is supost to contain it-self. --zzo38(*)? 20:16, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
  • Definately BJAODN. A very awesome, albeit stupid, joke (: —siroχo 23:04, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Author intent does not matter, only the content of the article itself. -Sean Curtin 03:05, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • But can't one infer things about the author from reading the article? Gustave Flaubert wrote "An author in his book must be like God in the universe, present everywhere and visible nowhere." Surely the same applies even in Wikipedia. Saying that author intent doesn't matter may impress the postmodernists, but it's missing the point on a very important level. Would you deny the affinity between a sculpture and the sculptor? Factitious 21:28, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 04:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg 16:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Hehehe. Delete. Lacrimosus 09:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. An interesting page. Mark Richards 17:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • A non-encyclopedic joke list. Was rightly placed on BJAODN, because it is impossible to fulfil what it proclaims: "This page shall list all and only those wikipedia lists which do not contain themselves as members." Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I would not object to turning it to a redirect, either. - Mike Rosoft 14:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep this. It is not a joke. Intrigue 17:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect, preferably to Russell's paradox --Etaonish 21:03, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_all_Wikipedia_lists_that_do_not_contain_themselves&oldid=1138003244"