Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong's 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 speedy delete. Too many issues with this article. Besides, the mathematical formulation is weak. In any case, SNOW will apply here. Tone 17:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hong's paradox

This is not notable and may even be something made up one day. There are no hits in Google Scholar; in Google the only reference is a 2002 post on a Dungeons and Dragons forum. The links given are about Zeno's paradoxes and say nothing about Hong's. I have not checked the book reference, but it was published in 2000 when the discoverer of the paradox was 11 years old. Possible hoax, certainly not verifiable. Contested PROD. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (n.b. I was the one who originally PROD'd it, for the reasons outlined above). One might also like to add that Google finds nothing regarding the paradox's author, either. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT. Though the concept is quite famous! 88.112.63.253 (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since a book is given as a reference I performed this search to no result. Unless citations can be found this fails all tests for inclusion Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think he read the book right after it was published? And why do you think young, anonymous scientist can't make any discoveries? Ygmmasta (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the point being made above. Please read our Wikipedia:No original research policy. This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. It is not the place for creating and publishing new ideas. Nor is it the place for laying claim to invention of existing old ideas. Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To spell it out: if the book is cited as a reference because it says that Hong discovered his paradox, he must have done so when he was 11 or younger since he was said (in the first version of the article) to have been born in 1989, and the book was published in 2000. If it doesn't say he discovered it, it is no use as a reference for this article. JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this unreferenced and unreferenceable original research per WP:BURDEN and WP:SNOW.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. Versus22_talk 15:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:MADEUP, WP:HOAX, possibly WP:OR, or this Google search would yield more than two hits. And may I add that the article reads like complete nonsense to me! -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, technically there is only two because one of them is from Wikipedia. Versus22_talk 16:54, 8 March 2009 (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.