Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleeping Beauty problem
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original Research Crypts0141 19:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It seems to be a notable probability problem/koan/thought experiment. I've added two literature references to the page here. As far as I can tell, the page describes the problem accurately, so I don't see the OR problem. Thanks, TheronJ 19:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Forged References Deleted: You forged those references so I deleted them. crypts0141 4:37, 15 September 2006 (EST)
- Nothing to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martingale paradox, definitely not. No way this is a bad faith nom by a sockpuppet. Oh, wait, it's assume good faith, not Wikipedia:Be gullible. Keep of course. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Unlike Martingale paradox, the Sleeping Beauty article is coherent and mathematically sound. -- Four Dog Night 23:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:POINT vendetta for nomination of Martingale paradox. Septentrionalis 02:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Septentrionalis. Michael Kinyon 06:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - interesting and verifiable concept. Serpent-A 06:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — This is a well known problem/paradox among philosophers. Where are the arguments for deletion? INic 01:55, 20 September 2006 (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.