- 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 keep. Consensus was that the phrase is notable (non-admin closure) Monty845 03:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even wrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a phrase from a famous joke. The page is trying to manufacture acceptable usage for the phrase based on a blog/book by the same name, and a newspaper article. This phrase is not widely used and is without consistent definition. If this isn't about promotion, then it is about artificially adding a new phrase to the vernacular. Rpf (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phrase is widely used (as one can see by clicking on the links in that find sources parenthesis at the top of the page); whether it has a consistent definition is irrelevant to whether it should have an entry or not. N p holmes (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable phrase. Laurent (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The phrase is clearly notable. Sources include Scientific American, and The Guardian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celahir Séregon (talk • contribs) 16:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into absurdity. The phrase is just an arch way of of saying that something is absurd, nonsensical or preposterous. Our policy is to merge words and phrases with a common meaning together rather than treating them separately. Warden (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable phrase. It is not a way of saying that something is absurd. The article has a useful explanation of the meaning. Roger (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - well sourced, which proves notability by way of significant coverage. We have whole categories of such phrases, and most such cases are kept at AfD. Ironically, Colonel Warden is "not even wrong", because it can not be proven that "not even wrong" is the same as "absurd". It really means something like "unverifiably bad logic". Bearian (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Aside from the references in the article, I can personally tell you that this phrase is very well known in the physics community, in which Wolfgang Pauli is extremely famous. As indicated in the article, it has a serioue meaning beyond simply "absurd" or "preposterous" in that it strikes to the heart of the scientific method -- a theory must be testable in order to be science. If it can't be tested it's "not even wrong" -- or "it does not rise to the level of being incorrect" as I have heard it restated. rtcutler 1 June 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtcutler (talk • contribs) 19:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources presented are sufficiently on-topic, in-depth, and reliable to the purpose. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Relevant - Skysmith (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2011 (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.