Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relevance 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. Davewild (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance paradox

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

fail WP:GNG, part of the great circle of essays written by one guy that support each other —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I, too, noticed the connection between these, so I'm glad you followed the creator's links. They do not follow WP style, and aren't appropriate topics for WP. LaMona (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As it is below, so it must be above, or something suitably alchemical: private essays derived from a personal philosophy. Hithladaeus (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY, no evidence this thing is actually notable per WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 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.