Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safe sex makespan (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep, as renamed to Glove problem. I have deleted the original title as an implausible redirect, having replaced the only significant link to it in the List of mathematics articles. JohnCD (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Safe sex makespan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Completing nomination for User:Lawikila. On the merits, I have no opinion. The original rationale, posted at the article's talk page, is copied verbatim below. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No modification to the article have been made. Google scholar does not return any result for "safe sex makespan". One may grant that the problem is a legit OR problem, but if it has not a single hit on google scholar, possibly does not belong here. Though a simple google search of 'makespan' brings one here. The concept of 'makespan' is better explained in Job Shop Scheduling. I have nominated the article for deletion again. --Lawikila (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note. I've moved the article to Glove problem. --Lambiam 23:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to Wikipedians: "OR" here means "Operations Research", not anything in wikijargon... Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment It's possibly better known as "glove problem" or "condom problem" (Vardi, I. "The Condom Problem." Ch. 10 in Computational Recreations in Mathematica. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 203-222, 1991, cited here); both of these return some hits though notability isn't certain. Condom problem is currently a redirect. If someone wants to rewrite and move to a more well-known title, that may be the best option. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment that sounds very sensible, in which case it's a keep and rename? As it stands it's unsourced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with keep and rename to the glove problem. The original deletion discussion came to the same decision but close to 6 years on nobody had changed it. I volunteer to put in as much information as I can for this if we decide for a keep and rename.--Lawikila (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and just change the title as suggested.  DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with DGG, Colapeninsula, Lambiam, and the many people from the first AFD discussion. Lawikila, you had all of the tools to enact the prior AFD consensus yourself. You can edit and rename articles, and you don't need some sort of magic permission to do so, certainly if enacting what a lot of people clearly think to be the best course of action.  Don't follow in the footsteps of the no-effort people, such as the person above you on the article's talk page, who go around complaining that other people aren't making any effort, ironically putting more work into their complaints than would be needed for them just to do what they want done.  And only nominate things for deletion when you want use of the deletion tool, that you do not have, and certainly wasn't needed in any way to do what you wanted done here.  Remember:  If "nobody has done anything in 6 years", then you yourself are part of the problem when you, too, do nothing with your tools.  You have the tools.  Use them! Uncle G (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Uncle G, or at least as far as he agrees with me :). I've moved the article to Glove problem. (As far as I'm concerned, the resulting redirect can go, it being an utterly implausible search term.) --Lambiam 23:26, 11 May 2012 (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.