Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four glasses 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Four glasses puzzle

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not convinced this game is notable - it does not have a venerable history (eg Tower of Hanoi) nor does its solution illustrate some mathematical principal or feature a surprising or non-intuitive outcome which has caused it to become the subject of media or scholarly attention. As such article seems to offer the prospect only of a 'how-to', one of the things Wikipedia is not. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Martin Gardner, who was a notable mathematician, felt it was notable enough to include it in his puzzles in Scientific American. It's solution is far from obvious and certainly not trivial - my guess is that fewer than 5 in a hundred people would solve it, and those people would probably have a maths background. As for 'venerable history' - I haven't seen this criterion in the puzzle category and I'm sure most of the puzzles already there don't fit that description. By the way, this puzzle is neither a game nor a sport.....Androstachys (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited - the puzzle has to be notable by Wikipedia standards, not the standards of its creator. Difficulty in solution also =/= notability: some puzzles are notable because they are so difficult to solve that people write about them, or because their solution is interesting enough to warrant comment.  "Venerable history" is another example of something that makes a puzzle notable - if it has been around for a long time, it is more likely to have garnered sources writing about it.  I could have added widespread play (eg Kim's Game which is widely played in schools), appearance in a tv game show, or several other factors which may make a puzzle notable. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia standards of notability are notoriously subjective, as is the notion of venerability - the final test really is whether it holds sufficient interest and the difficulty of its solution. Androstachys (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the final test is whether it passes the very non subjective wikipedia standard for notability. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article..Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Article topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice." doesn't help.....Androstachys (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Does if you read the whole thing. However, if you prefer not to, you can expect your articles to be repeatedly tagged for deletion.  Up to you.  Mathematics does not have a different standard of notability, verifiability etc than the rest of the encyclopaedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I think it passes our notability threshold. Gardner's original puzzle and some generalisations of it are discussed in Chapter 4 of Julian Havil's Nonplussed! and in a Journal of Combinatorial Theory paper by Richard Ehrenborg and Chris Skinner. I have added both as references to the article, and made various other improvements. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I couldn't find sources, but Gandalf did, nice job! As a Hobit, I've always liked the guy who did the fireworks :-) Hobit (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Kudpung, who PRODded this article, mentioned that he wanted to add a comment.  We should probably wait and see if he does, otherwise well done Gandalf61 - I couldn't find sources either (the only mathematician I have books by is Ian Stewart, who doesn't mention it), but I believe the article now passes notability.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

My response to this:
 * Keep, but only thanks to Galdalf's research. Martin Gardner's personal notability is insufficient reason to have an article here about every puzzle he ever designed or mentioned. A similar thing happened with the puzzle, created by the same author who created this article: In response to this, I took the trouble to replace the worthless source with a proper one. DVdm (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. why not? Danski14(talk) 22:00, 9 September 2010 (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.