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. j⚛e decker^talk 02:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exception 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)

This unreferenced article describes a paradox which has next to no trace in any literature. A GBooks search finds a lot of false hits and a series of three books by one author. He appears to be not without credentials but the fact that so basic a thing is only described by him suggests that the idea isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nicholas Rescher Paradoctor (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A Gscholar search for "every rule has an exception" paradox nets 38 hits and "there is an exception to every rule" paradox gets 56 hits; of the hits I was able to access, none called it an "exception paradox" and the paradox tended to treated very briefly. That the proverb is a paradox is verifiable, but I don't see enough depth in any of the sources I looked at to pass WP:GNG. It might be worth noting under the "There is an exception to every rule" entry in List of proverbial phrases that the phrase is paradoxical, with a ref. --Mark viking (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we also have a long List of paradoxes that includes this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list only collects notable paradoxes, so it would be removed. Paradoctor (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; it's simply not notable in its own right. bobrayner (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The only criteria that matters is notability. I suspect that this article would have worked very well on Everything2, H2G2 or any number of sites where the goal is to entertain rather than to build an encyclopaedia.

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.