Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Induction puzzles


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Induction puzzles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced page with material that suggests a promotional or advertisement slant. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't delete it is the only place where I found the Induction puzzle about the King's hats. Deletion is a obliviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0E:C350:140B:6105:75CF:EC7C:6528 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see no sign of "promotional or advertisement slant" here, so can you please explain what you mean ? Anyway, puzzles that require the use of induction (that is, a response to the response of other participants rather than just to the initial known facts) are common and the inductive process is key to them, so I'd be surprised if there are no sources out there to indicate notability. Having said that, the article is clearly unsourced at the moment. I'll have a look around to see if I can find anything, but in the meantime I just want to suggest that this does not look like an obvious delete, and certainly not for advertising or promotion. Mr Potto (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Its the way I interpret the examples and solutions sections, they way they read to me is indicative of a how-to guide or a promotion for how to use this method to solve the following puzzles (although in fairness after going through the csd log an admin's brain is usually programmed to see the worst in an article at that point, not the best). As for the 'obvious delete' comment: if it was an obvious delete I'd have axed it on csd grounds during my csd/rc patrol last night; I put it here specifically because I wanted to make sure that the community had a chance to put in their two cents on the article since as I said above when admins go through the csd log they come out per-programmed to see the worst in an article and not the best. Its too early to tell at the moment, but given these preliminary comments I'd be of the mind that subject matter is encyclopedic but the page needs some surgery to correct the underlying flaws - in particular the absence of citations (although I'm sure other tweaks and corrections could be made as well if someone were of the mind to look into it). TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, thanks. I agree it does read like a "How to" guide, and if it's kept then that does need rectifying. (Btw, an article can be an "obvious delete" but still not a speedy delete - if it should obviously be deleted, but not by one of the strict CSD categories.) Mr Potto (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes article is unreferenced but topic is encyclopaedic, fits well in the series on puzzles and was genuinely useful to me today in researching the topic because of a reference to the 'King's Wise Men' puzzle in this article http://www.techradar.com/us/news/world-of-tech/uh-oh-this-robot-just-passed-the-self-awareness-test-1299362. Additionally no sign of promotional content. Mcewan (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I arrived at this article for the exact same reason, viz. recent discussion of AI self awareness, and I found it a useful resource. It would obviously be improved by the addition of references, but deleting it in entirety seems unnecessary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.31.221 (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Useful article with appropriate style and content.Smoobloke (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Smoobloke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 20:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, but the article could do with more context before plunging into detailed examples. Induction puzzles, in the sense used here, have been turning up regularly, in a bewildering variety of examples, for over 30 years in a wide range of academic publications (see this paper for a recent example) and for at least 20 in puzzle collections. PWilkinson (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I also arrived via the Techradar article, and found the page helpful and interesting, and clearly not meant to advertise. I've cleaned up a couple of the solutions, but haven't added sources.  Perhaps with sources, this should be restyled as a list of inductive logic problems?  Carleas (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Like the other posters here, I arrived at this page when searching for more information on the King's Wise Men puzzle after seeing it in the Techradar article, and it provides a very easy to understand explanation. Links to sources and more related articles would certainly be appreciated, but even as is this page definitely feels worth keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.157.107 (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - As other commentators have mentioned, not only does this article serve as the top search result for the "wise men" logic test and one of the few in-depth explanations in the first page of search results, but I don't think there is any basis to claim that the article is promotional or advertorial in nature, since no specific organization or company is mentioned as a "sponsor" or "creator" of the methods to solve the logic puzzle and there is no incentive (financial, reputational, or otherwise) to choose a particular method to solve a given logic puzzle. If the standard for "promotional or advertorial content" is lowered so that educational content violates this rule, most of the maths/logic/problem-solving articles on Wikipedia would be candidates for deletion since they outline ways of solving problems. If preferred, this article could be merged into another article about logical puzzles, but to delete it outright on "promotional/advertorial grounds" doesn't make any sense. This article isn't perfect by any means and could certainly use work to tidy it up, but it serves an important educational purpose and isn't compromised by pushing support for a particular company and organization.TROPtastic (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I do not feel that this is promotional in nature (although the nominator has explained their reasoning on that issue); however, as has been mentioned, it is one of the few in-depth explanations of the subject. Without reliable sources cited, this would seem to indicate that this is Original Research. The main reason why it is getting hits at the moment is because of the passing mention in TechRadar's article - but this does not indicate that the subject meets the criteria for inclusion. A quick search did not yield indepth coverage of the subject anywhere that is reliable - and most of the "coverage" appears to be referring to puzzle books containing these kinds of puzzles, rather than a discussion about them. Although an interesting subject, that is not a criteria for inclusion... and this article (especially with no citations) does not meet the criteria for inclusion.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:05, 27 July 2015 (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.