Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic gopher


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Magic gopher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unverified article for a little flash application; the internet reveals no significant discussion of the topic in multiple sources. Or even insignificant discussion in one source. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There's insignificant discussion in 10,000 sources http://www.google.com/search?q="magic+gopher, including commercial educational resources NE Ent 21:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  21:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  21:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Extensive online mentions, some less horrid than others. I've added two that analyse it and link to alternate versions of the same game or trick. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing reasonable appears in any of my searches, and if it were notable something reasonable would pop up. Explicitly checked magazines, news, etc. Mentions online don't assert notability.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 21:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge or Rename to ???. The particular flash game isn't a notable thing. The concept outlined in most of the article, simple arithmetical "mind-reading" parlour tricks, is a notable thing.. If there isn't an article already, there should be one. This just looks like an article about a simple magic trick that is backwards-ly named after a single instance where the trick was performed. The practice of using multiples of nine to entertainingly "mind-read" has been around for centuries, this flash game didn't invent the idea.__ E L A Q U E A T E  14:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, I put 2 of those in the article, if I'm remembering the URLs correctly. I wondered whether this particular number property or trick has a name; if so I agree, a move to that name would be the best outcome. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename to something, yes, though I'm not sure what. Calling this article "magic gopher" would be like calling the article for Seven Bridges of Königsberg "extra reading of chapter 7 of my discrete mathematics textbook" (or whatever, just giving an example). The specific app itself isn't notable as far as I can tell. Ansh666 03:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is about a non-notable app.  I would not be opposed to a merge/rename, but someone needs to identify a clear target.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. These are some interesting comments. Thank you all. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. We do have an article on the general subject, Recreational mathematics, but it doesn't look like a good fit for a specific instance. Can anyone see anything in the greater that would be a merge candidate? __ E L A Q U E A T E   14:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or recast as Multiples of nine, which is the name of the trick that the sources are about. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 17:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * delete. Nowhere near enough for notability and none has been provided here: google hits don't establish it. We already have a page on divisibility rules, and this is a piece of trivial mental arithmetic based on the rule for nine. There are numerous tricks like these, based on divisibility, properties of numbers, etc.. I don't see that this is particularly notable or interesting.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. No in-depth and reliable sources on this app (as opposed to the simple and well-known mathematics behind it) that would show notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 09:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - software (app) article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS references. Refs provided are a brief mention in a blog, and a page about the math concept that does not discuss the app at all. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this app.Dialectric (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2014 (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.