Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predestination paradoxes in film

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. The other articles listed have already been deleted by PROD. JohnCD (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Predestination paradoxes in film

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

example farm, no citations given, unlimited list IsaacAA (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, these articles suffer from the exact same issues:

IsaacAA (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research.Edison (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. Safiel (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both the main target of this AfD and the five additional nominations were undergoing the Proposed deletion process and in fact the PROD's on all of them had expired and they were ready for deletion at any time. The five additional nominations can still be disposed of by PROD. However, I was forced to remove the expired PROD from the main target article, so by nominating for AfD, you essentially extended the life of the article by at least a week. In the future, if an article has a Proposed deletion tag on it, don't nominate for AfD, unless somebody declines PROD first. Had this AfD not been started, all these articles would likely have been deleted today. Safiel (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for the main nomination: fails WP:LISTN: there are only short mentions of this concept in film, most relating to the film Predestination. However, it is of higher-than-normal reader interest, at 2,000 views in the last 30 days. Esquivalience ^t 17:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The rest should be deleted as they fail WP:LISTN. Esquivalience ^t 17:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If any of this can be sourced, it would be better used to enhance the main articles Predestination paradox or Temporal paradox rather than create a TV Tropes-style compendium of examples. (Since this sort of thing appears in serious philosophical discussions about time travel and causality, it's not unlikely that some examples have reliable sources.) Colapeninsula (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia isn't TV Tropes. ~ Rob^Talk 17:25, 22 June 2015 (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.