Alphax wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Dan Grey wrote:
I have the hypothesis that "[[WP:NOR]] and
[[WP:V]] dictate perfectly
what should and should not be in WP". Someone prove that wrong
Suppose your hypothesis were true. Then there would be no disagreement
on what should and should not be in WP. Contradiction. QED.
Where is the contradiction exactly? Metaphysical semantics?
No, logic. Adding rigour:
Suppose the hypothesis were true. Then there would be no disagreement on
what should and should not be in WP. Then there would be no discussion
about it. Yet AfD as well as assorted talk pages are filled with endless
such discussions. Therefore, the hypothesis is false. QED.
The hypothesis was that "[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]]
dictate perfectly
what should and should not be in WP".
This hypothesis is true only if *both*
| (A) "Everything that satisfies both [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] should be
in WP"
*and*
| (B) "Everything that fails either [[WP:NOR]] or [[WP:V]] should not be
in WP"
are true.
Find something which fails one of them and everyone
agrees we should
have an article on, and you have disproved the hypothesis.
Yes, because this disproves subhypothesis B.
Alternatively, find something which *doesn't* fail *any* of the two, and
yet *not* everyone agrees we should have an article on it, and you have
also disproved the hypothesis (by disproving subhypothesis A). Examples
for this exist en masse.
Timwi