Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EvenMoreKarlScherer


 * 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 of the debate was keep burr puzzle, and merge plate-and-ring puzzle. The votes were:
 * 6 straight votes for deletion of both
 * 1 vote to keep both
 * 3 votes to keep burr puzzle
 * 4 votes to keep burr puzzle and merge plate-and-ring puzzle
 * 1 vote to "keep (or merge)" plate-and-ring puzzle
 * and finally, 1 vote to merge both

For burr puzzle, that adds up to 8 votes to keep and 1 vote to merge; for plate-and-ring puzzle, that adds up to 1 vote to keep, 1 vote to "keep (or merge)", and 5 votes to merge. -- BD2412 talk 01:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Even More Karl Scherer
This vfd concerns Plate-and-ring puzzle and Burr puzzle.

These are articles, which on more careful examination than last time, were created by User:Karlscherer3 contribs, who uses IPs
 * 202.37.72.100, and
 * 210.55.230.17, and
 * 210.55.230.18, and
 * 210.55.230.20, and
 * 213.157.5.222, and
 * 219.89.37.58, and
 * 222.152.25.248.

They are a non-standard (i.e. original research) categorisation of a class of puzzles.

Although the history includes many other editors, careful examination reveals that they mostly performed copyediting rather than adding content (except for a picture or two of a puzzle that fits the definition in the text).

It should be noted that over 100 articles (about 200 including images) created by Karlscherer3 were deleted simultaneously in a single VfD, by a 90% majority (see Votes for deletion/Zillions games). There is also a current VfD at Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer concerning an additional 8. The only reason this was not included amongst them was because I had failed to previously notice them. 3 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)


 * Delete (obviously)     3 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)
 * Delete (nonobviously). They need to go because he invented the classification himself.  If someone can prove he didn't, I'll change my vote. Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 21:46 (UTC)
 * Delete: Excessive. I want this guy gone, too, if this keeps up. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arbcom though if and only if this crap was created after the end of the first vfd.  I propose that this debate should be extended to include the power to delete any more crap that's been missed. Dunc|&#9786; 3 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)
 * The two referenced above were created waaaaay back in 2003, and it doesn't appear that any edits by KarlScherer3 or his associated IPs were made anytime recently. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  July 3, 2005 23:45 (UTC)
 * Delete them all. -Splash July 3, 2005 23:40 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasoning on the other VfDs for this stuff. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  July 3, 2005 23:45 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for burr puzzle, which is certainly notable (to my knowledge, and google search gets over 3000 hits). This is *not* original research.  See my comments at Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer. &mdash;Blotwell 4 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)
 * (my commentary moved from here to Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer &mdash;Blotwell 4 July 2005 06:32 (UTC))'
 * I am not clear on your vote - do you wish to keep the content of the article or just the existance of an article on the subject with possibly different content?     4 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)
 * The only content I support deletion of (apart from Zillions spam links which I have already cut from one or two articles, should be none now) is in Mechanical puzzle because it looks like someone's pet research. All content of all the other articles is relevant information about notable subjects and I see no reason to remove it.  I'm sorry if this wasn't clear from my previous post, but I suggest if you see problems with particular articles you should list them on VfD individually explaining your concerns rather than conducting an indiscriminate smear campaign against all articles by one author regardless of merit. &mdash;Blotwell 5 July 2005 06:06 (UTC)
 * Comment: can someone take a look at Convex tiling and see if it needs to be VfD'd as well, it was created almost 100% by Karl Scherer, and I'd have thought the mathematical term for anything remotely like this would have been something like planar tessallation.     4 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of the term "convex tiling" in the context of tessellations, or anywhere else for that matter. I don't think the phrase even makes sense; it apparently applies to a tiling of a convex area, not a tiling using convex polygons. A lot of the text seems to come from here, which is original research, at best. I think it should be added to the list of deletion nominees. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C; July 4, 2005 22:10 (UTC)
 * Now convex tiling does look like original research, especially in the history where it credits Karl Scherer with discoveries in this field. I would happily vote for its deletion, so please don't add it to this VfD which is already confusing enough.  &mdash;Blotwell 5 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)
 * Keep Burr puzzle, merge plate-and-ring puzzle into disentanglement puzzle. These topics are legitimate. Samohyl Jan 5 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)
 * Keep Burr puzzle. A cursory google search reveals lots of what looks like reliable information on "Burr puzzle". I really don't understand what the problem is. Paul August &#9742; July 5, 2005 04:39 (UTC)
 * Keep Burr puzzle and merge plate-and-ring puzzle as above, these are legitimate topics (I have a couple of Burr puzzles myself). I'd also just like to remind everyone to vote on the page not the user. I'm not sure I like the fact that User:    is apparently attempting to get every article this editor has worked on deleted.  Perhaps a little more research should have been done before listing these. Leithp July 5, 2005 07:21 (UTC)
 * Given that 130 articles out of 146 that the editor in question created were deleted in VfD by 90% majority, and the only reason these 16 were not is that I didn't notice them in time to put them in that VfD, I have increadibly good reason to doubt their worth.     5 July 2005 08:31 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate the frustration, I did see the other pages, but these are encyclopedic articles. I don't think these articles are in any way similar to the others, except for the involvement of one particular user. I wonder how many of the voters above read the articles prior to voting? Anyway, I didn't mean to get at you and I'm sorry if that's how it sounded (looked?). Leithp July 5, 2005 09:13 (UTC)


 * keep these articles are not connected or similar and should not be combined vfd'd--MarSch 5 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)
 * One may put articles up for VfD however one wishes. I put them up together, thus they are up together. Simple.     5 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)


 * keep (or merge) plate-and-ring puzzle. Paul August &#9742; July 5, 2005 17:57 (UTC)
 * Keep burr puzzle and merge plate-and-ring puzzle, per Samohyl Jan. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 5 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)
 * Merge all of this stuff into disentanglement puzzle, and maybe we'll get one good article out of it. I think the topic is very interesting (and certainly notable!), but the naming scheme sounds mostly "original", and the profusion of separate articles is pointless. I'm happy to help merge if consensus supports the action. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C; July 5, 2005 22:48 (UTC)
 * Keep and don't merge. Looks like a valid article to me. linas 5 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
 * Keep burr puzzle and merge plate-and-ring puzzle into disentanglement puzzle. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)
 * Keep burr puzzle (for example, see the IBM Research site on them).  No vote on plate-and-ring puzzle (I've seen them; I'm not sure they're significant enough for their own article.) Chuck July 8, 2005 13:11 (UTC)
 * User has 66 prior edits     8 July 2005 19:42 (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.