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 Sudoku#Variants. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 04:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sudokion[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:notability. Only sourced to a local radio presenter. Google searches find nothing of note about it. noq (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not helped by the article title being SudokiAn while the object in question appears to be called SudokiOn. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article title has been fixed. I moved it to the wrong name when going from an all CAPS title to a normal capitalization. GB fan 14:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Under the correct name there are even less ghits noq (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sudoku#Variants. I note that "Sudokion" is a recent trademark and the underlying puzzle appears to be equivalent to the "nonomino" or "jigsaw" variant which is certainly older. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Not independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, without prejudice if in a year or three this becomes independently notable. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment EQUIVALENT TO NONOMINO/JIGSAW SUDOKU - The principal objection states "the underlying puzzle appears to be equivalent to the nonomino or jigsaw variant (of Sudoku) which is certainly older". If all our various puzzles can be objected to because they appear to be equivalent to the nonomino or jigsaw variant then the same objection would apply to nonomino and jigsaw as they are variants of Sudoku. In any case, none of the puzzles is equivalent to nonomino. We will concede that all SUDOKION use Sudoku's rules - every row, column and cluster must contain the set of values of the puzzles, whether they be numbers, letters, emoticons or any other type of symbol. But thereafter SUDOKION breaks away in varying degrees until we reach the Parallelogram Katastrophion, an example of which can be found here.

POINTS OF DIFFERENCE WITH SUDOKU, NONOMINO AND JIGSAW Logikion: The Logikions are similar to the jigsaw Sudoku except for the facts that: 1. we don't just make Logikions in 9x9 size. We also make them in 6x6, 7x7 and 8x8 sizes. (No one else appears to have considered the possibility that they can be made intricately in smaller sizes 2. generally speaking the clusters of the Logikion are more complex than those of the jigsaw Sudoku (minor point) 3. we appear to be the only people who have applied the V and diagonal lines to make the puzzles more challenging.

Moreover, it should be noted that we produce Logikion puzzles in order to provide an easy transition between Sudoku and our more complex puzzles - Hypernion, Pandemonion and Katastrophion. If such a bridge wasn't necessary we wouldn't make them.

We included the information on Logikions in the Wikipedia article, simply to record the historical fact that they are one of the types of puzzle produced by Muddled Puzzles. If Wikipedia wants us to delete the stuff on Logikion let it go.

Hypernion, Pandemonion and Katastrophion: As far as we am aware these are the only square-grid puzzles containing one or more fragmented clusters. These are completely new puzzles, especially when presented in Plus Format. They betake Sudoku to places it never even considered. They are, therefore, newsworthy on their own.

Spatial logic: All the puzzles are spatial-logic puzzles, far in advance of Sudoku. This is especially the case when the X, V and diagonal lines are superimposed. The player can use all the solving methods applicable to Sudoku but if that is all he or she does the result will be failure. Without an understanding of how the clusters and superimposed lines relate with each other the player hasn't a chance of solving the puzzles.

Incredible economy of clues: If the puzzles were equivalent to nonomino and jigsaw they would require the same minimum number of clues that those puzzles require. As far as we are aware there are no 9x9 square-grid spatial-logic puzzles other than SUDOKION that require so few clues to produce a proper and satisfactory puzzle. 9x9 Sudoku requires a minimum of 17, while X Sudoku requires a minimum of 12.

To date, in our stable of 9x9 (81-cell) SUDOKION, we have: Plain-Format Katastrophions: 16 clues - 10; 15 clues - 4; 14 clues - 4 Plain-Format Pandemonions: 16 clues - 15; 15 clues - 8; 14 clues - 1 Plus-Format Pandemonions: 11 clues - 8; 10 clues - 2; 9 clues - 1.

So, if these puzzles were the equivalent of nonomino and jigsaw Sudoku it would be impossible to achieve such an economy of clues.

Finally: The puzzles are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia because: 1. they are new puzzles, which certainly owe their origin to Sudoku (hence the name SUDOKION) but they take Sudoku so much further 2. they are more challenging than Sudoku Chrisclarks (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment External Link Inclusion - I would like to include an External Link to Adam's Spencer's Breakfast Radio Show website. My argument is that each week over the past 12 months a new Sudokion puzzle is uploaded to the website, view the most recent puzzle. The types of Sudokion puzzles include; Pandemonions, Katastrophions and Logikions. All which have been supplied by the creator Stephen Jones.

A note on Adam Spencer - The original objection stated, among other things, that the only source was a local radio presenter. Adam Spencer's Wikipedia entry reveals that he is no ordinary radio presenter. According to the entry, Adam "is a patron of various science-related events and programs, including the University of Sydney's Eureka Prize, a "lateral-thinking" science prize. He is also a member of the Sleek Geek Week tour along with Karl Kruszelnicki, as well as performing his own stand up comedy at events around the country." Adam is not a man who would run second-rate recycled puzzles for more than six months on his Australian Broadcasting Corporation blog. Chrisclarks (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, please read WP:conflict of interest as your comments above seem to indicate you are involved in the production of these puzzles. Your points above, 1 - it is a new puzzle - that does not mean it is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. 2 They are more challanging than Sudoku - possibly but not relevant. And your note about Adam Spencer - he may well be a good presenter and have his own page but that does not mean that everything he touches is notable - notability is not inherited. noq (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing these puzzles since April 2011 and find them qualitatively different from Sudoku both in terms of the necessity to apply spatial logic at a vastly higher level of sophistication than that required for Sudoku and the significantly greater diversity of puzzle types. The substantially reduced number of clues also forces the solver to be more creative than simply applying the relatively limited rule set used when commencing a Sudoku. I am also an Adam Spencer devotee and while I acknowledge the observation that notability is not inherited, the value of Spencer's enthusiastic and sustained endorsement should be judged on its own substantial merits rather than addressed by way of a generic dismissal. The fact that Spencer is still publishing these puzzles on a weekly basis after twelve months (he recently mentioned on air that there are 'thousands of downloads each week') is evidence of a widespread recognition of their novelty. In anticipation of another generic response - it is not valid to simply dismiss evidence because it falls short of proof.Peterabes (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT is not an indication of notability. Can you show me an independent source talking about it? The article mentions it being referred to in "more than 20 provincial newspapers" - some 7 months before first being published which seems a bit strange and is too vague to be any reference. The Bangalow Heartbeat is a local paper. So the claims in the article - all without sourcing - are that they appeared in a local paper and on a local radio presenters website. How is that in any way WP:notable? noq (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.