Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monty Hell problem


 * 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 as original research. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 02:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Monty Hell problem

 * — (View AfD)

A mathematical problem proposed on Usenet (and apparently, an article that dates back to 2003). But it's unreferenced, and excluding Wikipedia mirrors, "Monty Hell problem" receives only 36 Google hits, showing a clear lack of notability. Because of its almost complete lack of coverage elsewhere, I'm inclined to call it Original Research as well. Ral315 (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to make it clear that I do not support a merge into Balls and vase problem as is described below; it only makes the problem worse by adding original research to another article. Ral315 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete no sources. -- Selmo  (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This problem, from what I can tell, has not seen publication outisde of usenet, but the last part is written very well. The Placebo Effect 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. 36 Google hits does mean not notable. Big  top  01:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with regret (maybe userfy or wikibooks?) A lot of good work has gone into this article; hopefully it can be saved in some form. However, it shouldn't be in mainspace unless it can be shown that this is the standard naming and specification of the paradox. --Trovatore 01:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with regret per Trovatore. - Aagtbdfoua 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - The "Appendix: Proof" is (like the whole article) unsourced. The question is logically flawed because it takes an unending progression, yet ask what happens when it does end creating the 'paradox'. Unnoteable question made by unnotable people answered and discussed unnoteably.--155.144.251.120 03:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You happen to be wrong on the merits of the question. Unfortunately that's beside the point. BTW unless something has changed, anon "votes" aren't counted in AfD discussions (of course, they're not supposed to be votes, but for practical purposes they often are). --Trovatore 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If an anonymous IP contributes meaningfully (i.e., they provide a reasonable explanation of their !vote), I don't see why the opinion expressed by that IP should be ignored. Obviously, that would be understandable if it was just a "per nom" type of explanation, but anyone should be able to contribute. Leebo 86 03:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's certainly possible that an argument given by an anon contributor could convince others, and thereby influence the debate. However in my view the closing admin should not count it, as an opinion per se, for the purposes of determining "rough consensus". It's not hard for the same person to contribute multiple times under different IPs, giving different rationales, and moreover someone contributing to an administrative decision should have a fixed point of reference by which to find him/her, and if appropriate compare with his/her history of contributions. --Trovatore 04:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion has always been that IP opinions are valid so long as it's clear that they're not being used to influence the vote. While it's certainly possible that the IP is also someone else who's already commented on this page, it's unlikely that they'd use only one additional "vote".  In cases where the vote has clear sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting, such as when a website gets their members to vote one way or another, I think IPs can easily be discounted, but just having an IP does not make one not worthy of having their opinion noted- AFD isn't a vote by any means.  Ral315 (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At the very least I think an IP's opinion is less worthy of note. If you want to make non-controversial improvements to articles, great, log in or don't, no biggie. But if you want to weigh in on an administrative decision, or for that matter any controversial content dispute, you ought to let us know who you are, at least with a fixed pseudonym. "Where you stand depends on where you sit", and people considering your opinion are entitled to some context for it. --Trovatore 18:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For reference, the AFD etiquette guidline says "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight." In other words, anon users can participate but we're also allowed to take what they say with a grain of salt since we don't know who they are. Dugwiki 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has anyone noticed that this is a great article. Furthermore, mathematical issues tend to have less google hits. This because it's not pornograhy. Nlsanand 03:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Move out the of the mainspace or merge somewhere. Put it anywhere. Transwiki, Userfy, etc. Far too good to be deleted. --- RockMFR 06:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy or delete per above. MER-C 06:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete typical unreferenced Usenet drippings. Note that this should not be confused with the legit Monty Hall problem article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not necessary because all the math just shows .9=.9 which is obvious. TonyTheTiger 17:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and move to user page but recreate if appropriate reference found While the article is accurate, far as I can tell, it's not referenced by outside published sources and doesn't look like it's going to be referenced any time soon. If a published text can be found talking about the "Monty Hell" problem using that exact name, then the article can be reinserted in Wiki.  Meanwhile, I'd recommend that an editor interested in maintaining the uncited information make a copy for their own user page to archive it.  That way, if a reference turns up, it can be easily recreated. Dugwiki 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. The issue isn't simply the mathematical accuracy, but also verifying whether the problem is actually commonly known in math circles as the "Monty Hell" problem and uses the same "plot".  It's possible that this problem was formally published elsewhere using a different fictional premise, for example, in which case we should be using the name of that story instead. Dugwiki 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment there's a technical issue here; the history needs to be preserved, not just the text, for GFDL purposes. But if I'm not mistaken, it is preserved anyway, and can be resurrected administratively if so decided. The rub is that I'm not sure there are any procedures for resurrecting an article "because circumstances have changed" rather than "because it was improperly deleted in the first place".  There should be, but I don't know that there are. --Trovatore 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, should references be added, the article can be recreated. It might go back to AFD, but if circumstances change, speedy deletion of recreations doesn't apply.  Ral315 (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I wasn't talking about re-creation, but undeletion, which is different. Undeletion restores the history, which would certainly be desired. I don't know of any existing procedure for undeletion because of changed circumstances. --Trovatore 02:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't clear enough; what I meant was, if it's recreated, the history would be undeleted upon asking an admin to do so, and the work put into this article could be reused. Ral315 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or present the reliable source at WP:DRV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom :: mikm t  18:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Painful Delete. Unsourced and confusing, but somebody worked like hell to make it shine. I suggest moving it to userspace. ~ Flameviper 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - It is based on something someone wrote in some chat or board. --Ineffable3000 21:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex43223 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Merge into Balls and vase problem, and move Redirect into Userspace or Wikipedia space (killing the resultant re-redirect). The name is bad, but the problem is a probabilistic version of the named one.  Alternatively, move to Talk:Balls and vase problem/Monty Hell problem, and kill redirect from mainspace.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Shove onto a userspace. It's a good article, and I'm sure there's notability out there, but it's not currently in the article. If nobody can find any before the AFD ends, then we should hide the article in a dark corner until someone can. -Ryanbomber 12:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As pointed out by User:Ryanbomber Arthur Rubin, this problem is a restatement of the Balls and vase problem, but named the Monty Hell problem as a play on Monty Hall problem. However, none of this material is sourced.  It was posed on a Usenet group, and the term doesn't appear to be in common use. -- Whpq 17:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Balls and Vases, or userfy it. This is an interesting problem and well done. Too bad there are no reliable sources.... --Gwern  (contribs) 21:49 11 January 2007 (GMT) 21:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Balls and Vases, by Arthur Rubin's arguments. I see no problem with leaving a redirect there; redirects are cheap, and if someone tries to ask Wikipedia "What is the Monty Hell problem?", I see no reason not to answer him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Balls and vase problem per Arthur Burin - I'm also happy to leave a redirect there, though. Quack 688 00:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Balls and vase problem per Arthur Rubin, with redirect. Robin Z 15:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the merges might seem like an easy way out, but I don't see that it addresses the problem. The only sources are still to a newsgroup, and it is still not established that this is the standard terminology. --Trovatore 19:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the material should only be merged into another article if it can be sourced. A redirect would be useful, though, regardless of whether the article is deleted entirely or merged first. Dugwiki 19:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - and do not merge. This appears to be a reformulation of the balls and vase problem, approximately, but that doesn't mean we should merge it with that article. After all, it's possible to come up with numerous examples of any problem type. We should only add those that are notable--those that have been in published papers, in this case. Since the 'monty hell' problem doesn't seem to exist outside the internet, it's not notable, not verifiable though reliable sources, and should be deleted. --Sopoforic 05:50, 14 January 2007 (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.