Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat 4D Rubik 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   delete. Sourcing/notability issues. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 21:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Flat 4D Rubik puzzle

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No quality Google hits. Fails WP:GNG. Zad68 (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. What? The article cites several books on the subject! At the very least, Google hits (on a cursory look) seems legit. No reason to delete. Lord Roem (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional note -- yes, this article can do with some cleanup and needs independent/secondary sources to be explicitly cited in-line. However, that can be fixed without a deletion. Lord Roem (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a scholarly article on the question: found here. There are a few other articles that touch on the subject. Search results for that found here. Lord Roem (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per lord roem Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * delete none of the sources describe the 'Flat 4D Rubik' puzzle, not least as they all predate it. Of course much work has been done on higher dimensional variants, as described at n-dimensional sequential move puzzle, and software has been available for a while (see the many screenshots in that article), so the software described is neither original nor notable. Absent reliable sources on this particular software this fails GNG and so should be deleted.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * John, the scholarly article I linked to above discusses the 'four-dimensional hypercube' (the tesseract) in the context of Rubix's Cube. Look at the source itself. Lord Roem (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we have an article on such puzzles, at n-dimensional sequential move puzzle. The linked paper says nothing that I can see about the 'Flat 4D Rubik puzzle'. It further is is not a reliable source from e.g. a journal, it is not even a well written paper (date? institution? it's own references?). The references in the article are of better quality but they predate the date the puzzle was created by many years so say nothing about it.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Blackburne. The "Rubik tesseract" is a legitimate topic, but is distinct from the subject of this article and is already covered in n-dimensional sequential move puzzle.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Blackburne & Biały. The difference between this puzzle and Rubik's Tesseract is that this (with the layer substitution) is only mentioned in one self-published paper.  The representation described here might be of use in discussion of Rubik's Tesseract, but it should be discussed only there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic covered in n-dimensional sequential move puzzle is just the “Superliminal Magic Cube” puzzle. Why is the one approach to implementation of the "Rubik tesseract" puzzle a legitimate topic, but another is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzzle314 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * n-dimensional sequential move puzzle covers the topic of higher-dimensional puzzles in general with four different software programs used as examples, by Superliminal, Graviton3D, Andrey Astrelin and David Vanderschel. That does not stop someone writing an article on an individual program but it needs to be independently notable. It must have reliable sources on the program, i.e. on the Flat 4D Rubik puzzle in this case. But all the sources are on the general topic, not on this particular implementation.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If anything, this seems more like a reason to Merge than Delete. Lord Roem (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per Lord Roem. Hellbus (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Question for those voting "Merge": What exactly should be merged?  It has already been established that the particular, individual subject "Flat 4D Rubik puzzle" fails WP:GNG due to the complete lack of reliable secondary sources covering it, and that the general topic already has a good article at n-dimensional sequential move puzzle.  So, what should be copied out of this article and into n-dimensional sequential move puzzle?  100% of the content of this article is copied from the non-notable web page of the puzzle here, and copied self-promotionally by the author of that web page, I note--all the pictures being copied in from that web page are tagged as copyright-released by the author.  The puzzlemystery page relates only to that particular non-notable varietal of the general n-dimensional sequential move puzzle.  If by "merge" we mean "Add a link to http://puzzlemystery.com/FlatRubikPuzzle.aspx?r=10 under External Links at n-dimensional sequential move puzzle, I agree, but "merge" should not retain any more content from this article than that. Zad68 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that article is n-dimensional sequential move puzzle, not 'list of non-notable n-dimensional sequential move programs'. While some programs have been used as examples or for screenshots the article is not about them or meant to be, and there's no requirement they be described. They can be added as external links per the EL guideline.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * JohnBlackburne - so to be clear, you are !voting for: 1)  Delete this article Flat 4D Rubik puzzle, and 2) Add http://puzzlemystery.com/FlatRubikPuzzle.aspx?r=10 as an External Link at n-dimensional sequential move puzzle, do I have that correct?  Thanks Zad68 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm even having some misgivings about adding it as an External Link at n-dimensional sequential move puzzle, because the list of puzzles at puzzlemystery really do not provide any further in-depth analysis of the subject, and there is no indication that the puzzles there have been created by or reviewed by experts, so who knows if they even follow the rules of n-dimensional sequential move puzzle. However it's one of several sites to play around with something like them, so probably OK.  Zad68 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether it makes a good external link there is independent of this discussion; I would say it's probably OK as long as that section doesn't become overlong due to such links, as sometimes happens with mathematical articles and links to software/source code examples.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I see no coverage about this particular puzzle variant that establishes notability. I see no referenced information worth merging. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2012 (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.