Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of different maze types


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Comparison of different maze types

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is in essence "List of arbitrarily chosen labyrinths", with the actual "comparison" consisting half of redlinks and having no data. And there's nothing here that Labyrinth and Maze don't already cover. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unsalvageable original research. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per nom, this appears to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of anecdotes. There can be no comparisions if there is not enough information to classify "types" of mazes rather than single mazes, and this presentation of a comparison chart seems to make a generalization – WP:OR. The cited examples can be merged into labyrinth or maze if they are not already there. ComplexRational (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah my point was to make a comparison chart so it would be easier for people to compare the different types. Technically it is more like a glossary than a wikipedia article. I have given up fighting you, go ahead and delete Cattrina (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments: Last week I saw mention of an article being an almanac listing and now a "glossary". There may be some stuff that can be merged. Otr500 (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I hate saying "delete" in big bold letters when the topic is one that I find interesting. This subject has recreational mathematics, the history of religious art, etc., but the article does have serious WP:OR concerns. There's work to be done on labyrinth and maze; we should be getting the tags off of those pages instead. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a topic that may be notable (enough people have studied maze design that surely some have published taxonomies of them) but an article like this, based on personal reflection rather than reliable sources, isn't helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. We already have good WP articles on Labyrinths and Mazes. Definately OR (given selectivity), but really a WP:TNT case. Britishfinance (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Rename to List of maze types. It is a list article just didn't have the right name to make that obvious enough for some people.  It links to blue articles about the different types of mazes listed.   D r e a m Focus  21:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete These are not even maze types, they are just examples of mazes. The Bayeux labyrinth is not a type of maze, it's just the shape of the labyrinth at the Bayeux Cathedral, and the same appears to be true for the other "types". This is original research and sourced content can go at maze. Reywas92Talk 21:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Maybe this particular article isn't well written, but surely this is a notable topic.  I don't even think the sourcing is that bad.  https://labyrinthsociety.org/labyrinth-types lists several of the types in this article.   describes several others.  You need to put some work into searching, since both "maze" and "labyrinth" show up in a great many titles unrelated to this subject.  I suspect, given the number of contrary !votes, this won't get kept, but in that case, at least draftify, and hopefully User:Cattrina will continue to work on this.  This article, whatever it's faults, is worth more to the encyclopedia that most of the crap we have about porn stars, pokemon cards, and other pop culture ephemera.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ...that's why we have Maze and Labyrinth. What exactly is missing from those that is covered here in a structured manner? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.