Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Provonsha paradox
I already voted to keep this entry with a suggested rewrite, but I am just wondering if we considerd this source: http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/P/Paradox.htm.
In my opinion this particular paradox does fit nicely into the long list of others. I can't see why should it be considered vanity or even original research. Could somebody enlighten me please? ArpadGabor 17:30, Jan.2 2005
This is vanity and original research because nobody but the author ever hear of this so-called paradox. We can't just let people think up their own paradoxes, give them their own names, and submit them to wikipedia, as encyclopedias don't work that way. Articles in encyclopedias have to be about topics that are notable, famous, etc. This is not. It's just some kid who thinks he's smart. DreamGuy 23:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)