Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probability derivations for making low hands in Omaha hold 'em


 * 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 transwiki to Wikibooks. There are two issues involved here. One is the issue of whether the page is original research. The article contains nothing but mathematical derivations, which would seem 'obvious' and not in need of sourcing to some mathematicians. The article could do with a description of why the derivations produce the correct answer sourced from an reliable source outside Wikipedia, but this seems reasonable. The description of User:Geometry guy in the discussion as to how this article is in fact itself a source for Poker probability (Omaha), rather than requiring sources itself, is an interesting statement; however, bear in mind that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source by the definition, and shouldn't really be used to source itself. However, the issue of whether the content is appropriate for Wikipedia is more important. Giving long derivations isn't really the sort of thing that would be found in an encyclopedia; it's much more the sort of thing that would be found in an appendix of a textbook or other such work, as many of the comments below indicate. This content isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, but there are sister projects where this content is appropriate (and will still serve the same purpose, of backing up the assertions in the 'parent article'). I've asked the Wikibooks administrators to transwiki this article there; this closure is without predjudice against the article also being transwikied to Wikiversity. --ais523 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Probability derivations for making low hands in Omaha hold 'em

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Quite simply, WP:NOT and indiscriminate collection of information. This article consists solely of original research, with no references cited for any of the claims made, and it is highly unencyclopedic. Previously nominated for deletion in February (discussion: Articles for deletion/Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making low hands), the consensus until now has been to keep, although the previous discussion agreed upon the move to its current title. I see absolutely no hope for this to ever become an encyclopedia article, and it is certainly not one now. Helpful information to "Omaha hold'em" players and mathematicians, indeed, but it has no place on Wikipedia. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the only edits made to the page since it survived its last AfD have been housekeeping tasks, such as adding the verylong tag to it. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

== About Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making low hands ==
 * Delete per nom, WP:NOT a game guide, no reliable sources cited, possibly WP:OR. -- Kesh 03:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 08:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. (and userfy). JJL 15:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah, this reminds me of my early days on Wikipedia, back when I used to be a mischievous vandal. :) I had the following discussion with Doug Bell, who created the article.  I copy it now verbatim from his talk page:

I normally deal with articles that are too atrocious for Wikipedia - AFD and similar. I wonder if your article on poker probability is too good for Wikipedia. I found it as the second legitimate article on Wikipedia's list of longest pages. On a subject like this, that seems odd. Obviously, I'm not going to nominate the article for deletion or anything similar - and, as an admin, you know the rules at least as well as I do - but I'd like an explanation for why it's so long, and why all the material belongs. YechielMan 07:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Notice also that this is a subpage of the main Poker probability (Omaha) page. In writing this article, rather than simply providing the tables of odds and probability, which you can find many places on the Internet, the intent is to provide the derivations behind the tables.  These are obviously too long to include in the main article, so thus the subpages.  The subject doesn't really stand on its own as an article, so it's not a "main" article but rather a subpage.


 * The reasoning behind providing the derivations, which in some cases are quite expansive, is because this is precisely the type of information that makes the discussion of poker probability encyclopedic, rather than a simple regurgitation of tables. Without the derivations, the numbers in the Poker probability (Omaha) tables have to be taken at face value—there's no way to see where the numbers come from.  By providing the derivations, the complete set of formulas necessary to derive the probabilities are available.


 * As I started writing the article, it wasn't clear to me that some of the derivation tables were going to get so large. As I've continue with the article, adding sections, some of the derivations, in particular this one, have gotten rather large.  A lot of the size is due to the table mark up and math expressions.  I've considered whether the final article when done should include the derivation subpages or not, but until the article is finished, I've been adding them under the understanding that Wikipedia is not paper.  The final disposition of the derivation tables is still an open issue, but I think they add an encyclopedic value to the article that sets it apart from the many poker probability pages on the Web that are just giving the resulting numbers and not exposing the math behind them. —Doug Bell talk 08:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good answer. I'm impressed. YechielMan 06:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yechiel Man 12:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment-- Well, if and when this thing gets deleted, I think it should definitely be preserved somewhere, just because it is perhaps the most indiscriminate article I have ever seen :)--Cronholm144 14:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it indiscriminate? Are you suggesting it is not complete, and should be extended?  Jheald 17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep A spectacular resource to point students to, who are encountering the idea of combinatorial probabilities for the first time. Even if you'd only ever actually work through a couple of these as worked examples, what I like is the way this table succinctly shows that for any of these classes of hands, there is a (quite short) formula for the probability.  So think of its value like that of a picture -- not necessarily in each pixel, but in the impression overall conveyed by the whole.  Jheald 17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a textbook for math students; it is an encyclopedia. Please consider the material on the basis of its appropriateness as an encyclopedia article. There are other projects, such as Wikibooks and Wikiversity, that may accept such material aimed toward students; however, Wikipedia is not one such project. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well, wikipedia is not a student resource, it is an encyclopedia. WP:NOT speaks directly to this issue(indiscriminate collection...) and other issues, but I rather like the article and would like to see it stick around contrary to the policy. --Cronholm144 18:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, WP:ILIKEIT? Fine, but how is it appropriate to an encyclopedia? As you suggest below, moving it to Wikiversity may be an acceptable way to keep and maintain the material, but Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, and arguments on behalf of keeping material in the encyclopedia should be based in their appropriateness for this cause, not in the usefulness of the information for another cause. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The reply by the author of the article quoted above makes it clear that this is original research. --Lambiam Talk  19:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment--Wikiversity might be an option...--Cronholm144 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It could be appropriate for Wikiversity, and I'd be glad to transwiki it over there. The content is, in any case, certainly more appropriate to Wikiversity than it is to Wikipedia. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:NOT, WP:RS WP:NOR. This is an obvious case. Why are we even having this discussion? ^ demon [omg plz] 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, blatant original research. Alternatively, transwiki it to Wikiversity. --Core desat 19:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks quite interesting and I think there should a Wiki somewhere for collections of verifiable but non-encylopedic information - there clearly is a high demand for one. But its not a subject for Wikipedia. WjBscribe 19:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Perhaps it could go in Wikibooks? See for example this probability textbook . I imagine that if the material in the present article was moved, it would be legal to link to it from Wikipedia. EdJohnston 20:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to subpage of Talk:Poker probability (Omaha) as a justification for believing the tables are correctly copied and not from sources with typoes. This is a reasonable function of a talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Certainly shouldn't get lost. Transwiki to Wikiversity and/or Wikibooks. I also like Septentrionalis' subpage idea. As far as I know mentioning it at the talk page wouldn't violate guidelines. Malc82 22:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments. I think this one is a bit more subtle than it seems at first sight and is certainly worth more thought than "Delete - OR" (although I have to admit that my first thought was "delete" as well). This article provides derivations of the numbers in some of the probability tables in the parent article which I will call Pp(O) for short. Other numbers are derived within Pp(O) itself, but these particular derivations are simply too long for the main article.
 * Now, an article isn't OR just because it was produced by a wikipedian (all articles are), neither is it OR just because it doesn't cite sources (we'd lose most of our content if we deleted all that): it is OR when it contains new information. There is little evidence for that here.
 * Indeed, it is claimed that the information in Pp(O) is common knowledge among Omaha players and can be found on numerous websites. So if you think about it for a minute, this means that if the article we are considering is OR, then so is Pp(O) itself! I mean, how do these other websites obtain the numbers? There is pretty much only one way to derive probabilities in a problem like this: enumerate the possibilities using binomial coefficients, exactly as in this article.
 * Pp(O) links to a site which calculates these probabilities, which means that there is effectively a published computer program carrying out these derivations. This is of course, a very poor source, so is it reliable? Well, the article we are considering, as Septentrionalis has suggested, actually provides a way to check the reliability of the source.
 * This article itself has no references. We don't, however, normally delete articles without references unless there is a good reason to do so (copyvio, libel, living person etc.). In this case, unless we want to put Pp(O) itself up for deletion, there is a good reason for keeping this one: it actually helps with WP:V rather than damages it. Of course both articles need to cite web and printed matter to support the common knowledge that this is how Poker probabilities are calculated in general, and in Omaha in particular. I think that would be easy for an expert to do, and so is not justification for deletion. Geometry guy 18:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I definitely agree with Geometry guy that this is not OR. I'm rather surprised several people have stated that as a reason.  But it seems to me that the obvious deletion reason, not a manual or collection of indiscriminate information, is a fairly good one.  I'm personally on the fence about this one, since I think there are some subtle issues here.  It depends on whether you regard some information on derivations "indiscriminate" or necessary for conveying understanding.  Certainly in many mathematics articles, if I inserted a simple sentence or two giving a little more detail on something that could appear mysterious or confusing, I can't imagine people complaining to me about WP:NOT.  Probably what gets people's hackles up is that there is a big chart.  This may bear some resemblance to things like multiplication tables, where obviously it is inappropriate to have them up to some large number (up to 12 is considered standard).  But it doesn't seem to me the level of detail here is excessive, although I flip-flop on that.  Frankly, I thought this would be more controversial than it has!  --C S (Talk) 07:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy or transwiki but definitely delete from mainspace. It's a how-to manual, which is not allowed. --Trovatore 22:41, 26 June 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.