Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incompatible Food Triad


 * 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   merge to George W. Hart.  MBisanz  talk 04:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Incompatible Food Triad

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No suggestion of notability within article, none identified with good faith web and news search. Bongo matic  22:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is a one-off joke, not a real logic problem. The subjective nature of taste should make that much clear. "Go together" is a psychological or physiological relationship, not a logical one. J L G 4 1 0 4  02:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the conclusion, but not the path there. Plenty of things that are misguided, wrong, or silly have gained notability in the WP sense&mdash;this simply isn't one of them. Bongo  matic  01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it's being presented as some sort of model logical puzzle. I agree that if it had notability, that would trump my "not a real logic problem" concern. J L G 4 1 0 4  18:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It's been discussed by at least one reliable source. It's all over the internet. Whether it can be merged somewhere I don't know. But I think it's notable and worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Discussed" ≠ "significant coverage". Being given as an on-air puzzle does not constitute "significant coverage." Bongo  matic  22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't think this is particularly interesting or compelling, but I think it's notable enough RoyLeban (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see notability in ghits that all refer back to this page, which is nothing but a musing on a joke, with a few references to others who have mused similarly. I don't equate notability with scattered but connected musings that happen to be on the internet. J L G 4 1 0 4  02:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't see or find any reliable sources writing about this. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  —Cunard (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to George W. Hart. I've done a couple searches for sources, but like the above voters, I cannot find any independent coverage for this food puzzle. The Incompatible Food Triad fails the general notability guidelines, but this topic merits a brief inclusion in its creator's article since it does have some minor coverage on the Internet, which can be sourced by George Hart's website. Cunard (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (briefly) and then redirect to George W. Hart as per Cunard. This isn't notable in its own right, and refs seem to be entirely self-pubished. No prejudice to recreating if it becomes notable in the future. --Ged UK (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect I can't see how it's a "joke" as JLG4104 keeps calling it, just because the parameters are rather fuzzy. There's no indication on Dr. Hart's page that the purpose is to be funny or ironic rather than to find actual solutions. I also disagree that whether or not it has enough notability to trump its fuzziness is even an issue – notability is the only element here that matters; the fuzziness plays no role in whether or not it should be deleted. If it's notable, it doesn't matter how fuzzy it is. If it's not notable, it doesn't matter now non-fuzzy it is. As it stands, I agree with the two previous arguments that it may be notable enough within the context of Dr. Hart to be included in his article, but does not appear to have sufficient stand-alone notability. If editors more familiar with Dr. Hart's work believe that it is not a significant enough part of his work to be mentioned, then it's their prerogative to remove it from there. So I say we merge, and put the ball in their court. --Icarus (Hi!) 21:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as per above.--Sloane (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable logic puzzle which hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It was given coverage on a notable media broadcast. And you can't merge that much information.  So saying Merge, means delete, there nothing but one sentence mentioning it at all on the main article.  Many notable people have used this.  They must be notable, since they have their own wikipedia pages. ;)    D r e a m Focus  02:13, 27 February 2009 (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.