Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survo Puzzle


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Survo Puzzle

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No notability established, no independent, reliable sources giving more than trivial coverage. Editor who added it seems to be a WP:SPA/WP:COI account. DreamGuy (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Lida Vorig (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is about a logic puzzle that is popular and obviously notable in Finland (see the talk page). As there seems to be reliable and independent sources that neutrally describe the mathematical facts related to Survo Puzzles (some examples of such sources are suggested in the talk page), and as the Wikipedia:Verifiability guideline states that sources in other languages than English are acceptable where English equivalent is not available, I can’t see any reason why the article wouldn’t be notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia. It was also suspected that the editor who added the article may be WP:COI account. As that is not known, I suggest that the article is edited in order to remove possibly non-neutral or promoting statements. In conclusion, I believe that the page can be improved through regular editing and discussion, rather than deletion. Btw, AfD tag is still missing from the article. Repale (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't seem to have an AfD notice on it. I added one. Who knew it was that easy? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Either sources can be and will be added to the article, in which case keep, or there are no sources (or nobody willing to add them to the article), in which case delete. Concerns about the writer being an SPA or COI account seem irrelevant. Any COI can be removed, and an edit made by an SPA looks the same as an edit made by a 100+ FA writer. It's really just a question of sourcing the claims. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I Added some references to the article. Repale (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Now if those sources are inadequate, it's incumbent on those supporting deletion to say why. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep references have been added. Appears to be notable unless it's a hoax. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. In the current state, there are more than sufficient references, and this appears to be a well-written article about a notable subject.   -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2009 (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.