Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin 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 delete.  Sandstein  11:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Latin Puzzles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has been edited to fix previously unpublished synthesis. The close connection notice is relevant as I am the author of the papers at Cornell University's arXiv mentioned in the article. Didoku (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  02:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article essentially introduces Didoku puzzles, later renamed to Latin Puzzles, based on a single source http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.06946v1.pdf, by a single author, possibly related to the author of the Wikipedia article in question. The article promotes several related web sites. The rest of the article references stuff related to Latin square and Sudoku. Merging with Latin square or Sudoku articles isn't an option - the discussed puzzle variants don't pass the notability criteria IMO. Particularly, Sudoku article is constantly expanded with non-popular variants that eventually are removed by the editors. --Dobrichev (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. IMO, the name of the puzzles shouldn't be an issue provided that it does not clash with existing ones. The article is actually based on three sources: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.06946v1.pdf, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.0772.pdf and http://www.definition.latinpuzzles.com. Most of the web sites have already been removed following the previous comment from Dobrichev. I agree with you that merging with articles for Sudoku or Latin squares is not appropriate, but for a different reason: Latin Puzzles are not variants of Sudoku, it is the other way around: Sudoku is a type of Latin Puzzle. In order to discuss notability please make explicit your notability criteria. Thanks. Didoku (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It is ironical that the article is tagged as "orphan" and a link from Sudoku has been deleted on the basis that Latin Puzzles 'has issues'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.37.71.209 (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Two additional sources for the article are the Spanish newspaper La Opinión de Tenerife and the Bulletin of the Spanish College of Telecommunication Engineers Didoku (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * IMO, the 'previously unpublished synthesis' is no longer applicable. A reference has been included that already makes a slightly broader synthesis of the subject: http://www.definition.latinpuzzles.com/ (Ref. 6 when this comment is written). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.37.71.209 (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete self-publshed neologism. ArXiv doesn't count as a reliable source because they have too little editorial control over content, and the math.HO category of the main source here is where they send all the math preprints that would be considered uninteresting to serious mathematicians. And latinpuzzles.org also obviously fails WP:RS. The rest of the so-called "sources" are not actually sources for the subject of the article, but inappropriately brought in as original research by synthesis. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hello David, what a surprise to see you around, welcome to the discussion. I admire your work and enjoy the “Did you know?” tidbits in your page. I share your interest in recreational mathematics too, but not your opinion advising the deletion of “Latin Puzzles”. I will expose my reasons next, but let me share first the feeling that you are coming down too hard on this matter. Your comments are terse and without nuances; my view is that there are shades in the topic that deserve more time and attention.


 * NEOLOGISMS. The fact that the title for a Wikipedia article is a neologism should have no bearing IMO on whether or not the article should be deleted. Neologisms are needed in Mathematics and Science to name new objects.


 * CLASSIFICATION. With respect to the classification in ArXiv, you fail to mention that authors also get to decide the category for their articles. You fail to mention too that http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.0772.pdf, another source for “Latin Puzzles”, is in math.CO, the ArXiv’s Combinatorics category.


 * SERIOUS MATHEMATICIANS. Your claim that “math.HO is uninteresting to serious mathematicians” deserves clarification. Please provide a definition of “serious mathematicians” before we can resume the discussion on this point.


 * LATINPUZZLES.ORG. You say that latinpuzzles.org –you made a mistake here, it is latinpuzzles.com– “obviously fails WP:RS”. This claim looks ungrounded as per section “Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves” on WP:RS: latinpuzzles.com seems to be a valid source because it complies with the requirements stated there.


 * ORIGINAL RESEARCH. A puzzle called “Canario” is mentioned in “Latin Puzzles”, and a newspaper is cited as a source for it. Please explain how this is a case of “original research by synthesis”.


 * RELIABILITY OF ARXIV. I think ArXiv has a certain reliability as a source, given the existence of moderators for each area and the need for endorsement. Quantifying this reliability needs a criterion, but some common sense ones give it a value above zero. To mention just a few:


 * – Many scientists publish in ArXiv regularly and cite ArXiv articles in their papers. You for example are author or co-author yourself of more than 160 articles in ArXiv. These scientists must be giving a reliability value above zero to the repository to do that.


 * – Define the reliability of ArXiv as the probability of an article taken at random be also published in an indexed journal. The reliability of ArXix by this criterion is not zero either.


 * – Another measure for reliability could be the ratio (number of ArXiv articles cited as a sources in Wikipedia scientific articles) / (number of scientific articles in Wikipedia). This criterion gives again a value above zero for the reliability of ArXiv, as there are articles in Wikipedia other than "Latin Puzzles" that have ArXiv articles as sources.


 * – Some important results in Science were first published in ArXiv. Grigoriy Perelman for example, a Fields Medal holder, chose ArXiv to publish his solution to the Poincaré Conjecture, one of the Millennium Problems. This adds reliability to ArXiv IMO.
 * Didoku (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Didoku, I'm striking out the word "keep" at the beginning of this comment. You only get to say "keep" once. Subsequent comments could be titled "comment" or "reply" or the like. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2016 (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.