Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game of Mr Paint and Mrs Correct


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Game of Mr Paint and Mrs Correct

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Proposed for deletion because "Fails WP:N. This 2009 invention has not been commented on or used in independent reliable sources." Contested, after which followed a short discussion on the talk page of the article, and at Wikipedia talk:Notability. While the game was published in a peer-reviewed (i.e. reliable) journal, there have been no independent commntaries, uses, reviews, criticisms... of it in other reliable sources. It has, after its publication, gone so far unnoticed. This may of course change in the future, but for now, it is not yet notable. Fram (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * comment. If it is deleted, is there any way to restore its content if anyone else cites it? (or is that my job?) Robinh (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, Robinh. "Deletion" on Wikipedia doesn't mean the text is actually gone, it just means it's hidden from non-administrators.  If anyone else cites it, then any administrator can restore the article with the text intact.  (It is possible to remove material from even administrators' capability to view it, but that's only done in very extreme circumstances; the process is called oversight.)  In this case, though, I'm not sure deletion is necessary.  A lack of notability means there shouldn't be a separate article.  It doesn't mean there shouldn't be any coverage on Wikipedia.  Since there's a reliable source, we should consider the possibility of a merge to (for example) combinatorial game theory.— S Marshall  T/C 19:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. The Game is cited in two EJC papers: V17, R13 (2010) and V16 2009, R77.  Both by the same author.  Does this change things?  I do not believe that merging with combinatorial game theory is a good idea because the Game's relation to other parts of CGT is not yet clear.  Robinh (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * comment The game appears under a different name is a special case of a game appearing in another EJC paper by Zhu. I guess EJC likes combinatoral game theory.  I have edited the page accordingly.  What is the timescale for this process? Robinh (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * keep (just to be explicit). The Game is cited by three peer-reviewed articles by two distinct authors.  I plan to further improve the article (by adding a picture of a game in progress and perhaps discussing online list colouring of graphs) as and when.  Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note that in the event of a deletion I think Robinh should have page userfied. Shadowjams (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. 66.102.198.175 (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * merge with combinatorial game theory and/or perfect information to improve those articles. Notability issue aside this topic does not have enough "meat" to make it encyclopedic yet and will need more written about it to become so. 66.102.198.175 (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads like someone's college notes. No assertion of notability, no RS. I'm sure this exists but it is just too obscure to matter. Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This has itself been reliably published in a good journal, so it's not original research, but only one other author has even cited it. I don't think that's enough — WP:GNG requires multiple nontrivial secondary sources, we have only one (Zhu's paper), and the source's coverage of the subject is close to trivial — it says only that this game is a different name for another problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 13 June 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.