Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominoes on a chessboard puzzle


 * 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 Keep ~ Anthony  01:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dominoes on a chessboard puzzle

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The body is almost certain a copyright violation of Martin Gardner's column and/or book. Perhaps that problem is fixable, but is the problem notable?&mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My prod was removed by an anon editor, so I'm bringing it here. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for no assertion of notability. Someguy1221 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. This problem is pretty famous in computer science; I was taught it as an undergraduate and it frequently makes its way into academic works in a non-trivial way, as a sort of benchmark problem for automatic theorem provers. As the nominator says we can easily fix the copyvio (if any) by rewriting the description ourselves. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * sofixit, then. I see no evidence it has ever been other than a copyright violation.  It's not subject to a speedy deletion as db-copyvio, because there have been multiple editors, but it's still a clear copyright violation.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought we were discussing its notability? We agree the possible copyvio can be easily fixed. (I am not sure it is "clear" due to the length but it's better to be safe.) Is this an AFD or a WP:CP? &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as a notable example of a bijective proof and/or an argument from parity. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What's your reasoning? Do you see the academic works non-trivial sources as invalid? &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a reference and rewrote the problem to address the copyright concerns. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into new article domino tiling (created after AfD of a different article involving domino tilings of chessboards led to a move to the new name). This would make a good example in connection with that article's description of a test for domino tilability. —David Eppstein 05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 10:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Now clearly notable. (But I agree with the argument that copyvio does not invalidate an article if there is other content showing norability)DGG 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of notability. - Chardish 06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of journals to cite; appears to be a notably difficult problem that tests automated theorem provers or whatever those are. –Pomte 04:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to mutilated chessboard (now a redirect to here). The new additions have convinced me that there's enough literature to make this a real article, so I'm changing my previous merge !vote, but I think the title should match the phrase this is commonly known under. —David Eppstein 04:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to mutilated chessboard - if, as you say, that's the phrase this is commonly known under. Then do we need to redirect this title to mutilated chessboard just in case? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 05:08, 6 May 2007 (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.