Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ping-pong ball conundrum


 * 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 Redirect to Supertask —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-20 01:40Z 

Ping-pong ball conundrum


Article is an unreferenced duplicate of a section of an identical paradox called the Ross-Littlewood Paradox. The only difference between the two is that the Ross-Littlewood sub-article uses marbles, while the Ping-pong ball article uses ping pong balls. Therefore the Ping-pong ball article can be deleted as duplicate material, with a redirect to the Ross-Littlewood Paradox. Dugwiki 23:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Supertask. They both contain very few hits, bit the Ross-Littlewood one has more than the ping pong one.  Ultra-Loser [ T  ] [  C  ]  01:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Supertask says the two problems are same with ping pong are marbles. why two articles??? Audiobooks 19:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect - there's nothing useful in the ping-pong ball article. Remove the hyperlink from the Ping-pong ball conundrum reference in the Supertask article. - Richardcavell 01:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect. No evidence of notability of this articular term. Mukadderat 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend using a redirect, since there are currently articles that link to the Ping Pong ball article. Deleting with no redirect would leave those other articles red-linked.  Also, it's possible that some unreferenced texts do indeed refer to the paradox using "ping pong balls", so readers who type that in should be redirected to the Ross-Littlewood_Paradox description. Dugwiki 16:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Richardcavell, with whose observation that there's nothing useful to merge I concur, and per Ultra, in view of whose observation that the marble formulation is (ostensibly) not profoundly less common as an alternative title to Balls and vase problem than the Ross-Littlewood one I can't imagine redirection to be inappropriate even as I would, were I in accord with Mukadderat's supposition as to notability, counsel deletion as against redirection, notwithstanding that certain redlinks might be created (I've never understood us to avoid deleting redirects or prospective redirects qua articles simply because we might thereby oblige ourselves to partake of a bit of housekeeping [here, to-wit, removing the quasi-self-referential link from Balls and vase problem and pointing the link at Thought experiment to the instant article to Supertask or Balls and vase problem instead; I've been bold and made such changes). Joe 05:48, 19 November 2006 (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.