Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blardy

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 of the debate was - keep with the option to merge

Blardy

Whimsical nonsense. Neologism. --LeeHunter 17:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Google doesn't find it - neologism. David Johnson 17:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Someone's joke. Geogre 18:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge: Dense article, but maybe there is another word for blardy already.
  • Comment: The above is by the page's author, an anon with no other contributions. But they do have a point. This is well-written, and fills a gap in our current coverage of Russell's paradox. The content should be saved. See talk:blardy. No vote at this stage. Andrewa 19:06, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge. Comment: This is a well-known paradox. The usual terms are autological (words that describe themselves) and heterological. See autological word a.k.a. Grelling-Nelson paradox. --MarkSweep 19:23, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Change to redirect "Grelling-Nelson paradox" where the concept (we called it a "jeed" at school, before most of you were born) is thoroughly covered. --Wetman 19:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - not meant to be taken seriously. Deb 20:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The page's author definitely meant it to be taken seriously, and the Grelling-Nelson paradox is in some form taught in every introductory course of logic or metalogic. Vote below. Andrewa 23:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. There's content there that was not in existing articles, both in some details and in a phrasing that is more approachable by non-specialists. (But the main thing this discussion has exposed is some navigation problems, which I think are now fixed by some new wikilinks and redirs.) Andrewa 23:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or merge as above. —siroχo 00:05, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to "Grelling-Nelson paradox". [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Some say blardy, I say baloney. Wyss 83.115.141.10 20:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep very satisfactory exposition of Russell's and Grelling-Nelson's paradoxes Sangrecio 23:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC).

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.