User talk:Uvenkata

Proposed deletion of Barzilai paradox

Barzilai paradox, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. An editor does not feel that Barzilai paradox satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barzilai paradox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are otherwise free to edit the content of Barzilai paradox during the discussion but should not remove the Articles for Deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —SlamDiego_←T 03:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Barzilai paradox

An editor has nominated Barzilai paradox, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barzilai paradox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barzilai paradox

I suggest that you do some further reading including upon (but not restricted to) such topics as the strong independence axiom (aka “the sure-thing principle”), and the Arrow Impossibility Theorem. These will help to provide you with the intellectual infrastructure to reälize that there is indeed nothing about this supposed paradox that is both correct and original. —SlamDiego_←T 13:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]