Deletion of Heisenberg's paradox

Comment: Cross Posted from the other two afds'' Whoever keeps making comments about this article being mathematical and therefore not research is missing the point.  The  policy is not designed to prevent editors from gathering data and drawing conclusion from them.  It is not designed to enjoin editors against a specific activity.  It is designed to prevent material that is novel and unique from being introduced into wikipedia.  So, even though the proof that (for example) ''e'' is irrational requires nothing more than knowledge and applications of the properties of real numbers, it does not belong in wikipedia unless we are summarizing a treatment from an outside source.  The inherent validity of the claim is not what makes it research or not.  Empirical claims are no different from theoretical claims as far as wikipedia is concerned--even though there is a gulf between them philosophically.  You seem to be capable of understanding the mathematical implications of these articles, so let's make sure you can understand the implications of our arguments.  Your defense is based on an incorrect connotation of the word research.  You interpret research to mean non-tautological results from empirical data.  For one, that isn't strictly true.  For another thing, that is not how wikipedia defines research.  I know I'm being repetitive, but I need to make sure this point is clear.  If I need to be even more elementary, let me.  the research is not the creation of the theoretical result (in this case, the paradox) from axioms.  The research is the revelation of that result to the world.  Regardless of the inherent truth of any theoretical claim, someone, somewhere has to reveal it.  The policy of wikipedia is that the revelation not occur here first.  Provide a clear, cited source that reveals the paradox and shows that it is notable, then you can keep the article.  Until then, no dice
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)