Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Mission 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Mission paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Contested prod. Nothing more then an original research essay. Ridernyc (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This appears to be just an ordinary self-reference paradox cited only to a videogame. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The user who created this article is also the person who entered that information into list of paradoxes. Ridernyc (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is just a trivial piece of plot from a video game. I don't think it's even important enough for mention in the video game's article, much less as a stand-alone article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A piece of plot from one video game. Hardly notable. JIP | Talk 08:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable variation of liar's paradox. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Liar's paradox. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without redirect, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable in the least. Seems more like something that should be a single sentence in the Portal article, or an example in the respective paradox article, not a whole article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 9 May 2012 (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.