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 of the debate was no consensus. For purposes of closing this vote, I have counted all votes that do not request different treatment for different articles as proposing the same treatment for all of them (and made no assumptions regarding Burr puzzle and Plate-and-ring puzzle, which are the subject of a separate vfd). By that count, there are:

6 straight votes to delete all

5 votes to keep all

1 vote (by Blotwell) to keep (or merge) all except to delete Mechanical puzzle (so 7 delete votes in all for that article)

1 vote to "Keep and Merge as per Blotwell" by Leithp (I am not counting this as a vote to delete Mechanical puzzle, as the only instructions in the vote were "keep" and "merge")

1 vote specifically to redirect word puzzle to word game, as they have already been merged

1 additional vote to delete packing problem (so 7 in all)

1 additional vote to delete transport puzzle (so 7 in all)

1 vote to keep a mechanical puzzle article, but rewrite the content

Finally, 1 vote to keep disentanglement puzzle and merge wire puzzle and wire-and-string puzzle into it.

By this count, the vote for most of these articles is 6 to delete and 5 to keep, the highest delete count is 7 for the three articles so noted above. No option gets a consensus with respect to any specific article, but I note that several keep votes appear to be premised on discomfort with the multiple-nomination process used here. Some very bold merging and redirecting may be in order. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

More Karl Scherer[edit]

This vfd concerns

• Disentanglement puzzle
• Packing problem Note: This is not an article about the mathematical issue of packing
• Rattle puzzle
• Mechanical puzzle
• Transport puzzle
• Wire puzzle
• Wire-and-string puzzle
• Word puzzle

These are articles, which on more careful examination than last time, were created by User:Karlscherer3 (who uses IPs User:210.55.230.18 and User:202.37.72.100, and User:210.55.230.20, and User:210.55.230.17, and User:222.152.25.248, and User:219.89.37.58). They are a non-standard (i.e. original research) categorisation of a class of puzzles.

Although the history includes many other editors, careful examination reveals that they mostly performed copyediting rather than adding content (except for a picture or two of a puzzle that fits the definition in the text).

It should be noted that over 100 articles (about 200 including images) created by Karlscherer3 were deleted simultaneously in a single VfD, by a 90% majority (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions games). The only reason this was not included amongst them was because I had mistakenly assumed the other editors had added content, and thus that there was something worth keeping. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)

• Delete (obviously) ~~~~ 3 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
• Delete, as per the above. NN and useless. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)
• Question Could somebody provide a link/citation to the 'correct' way to categorize these puzzle types? I'd like to be able to evaluate these articles more on their merits rather than on the credibility of the author. Thanks! Tobycat 3 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)
  • There isn't one. That is why it is original research, a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)
    • Tobycat doesn't want a citation for the disputed classification, but for the classification that you, -Ril- claim is more standard than it. (I want one too.) —Blotwell 4 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)
• Delete per -Ril-. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 3, 2005 17:39 (UTC)
• Comment: Shouldn't Burr puzzle and Plate-and-ring puzzle be added to this VfD? - Mike Rosoft 3 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
• I've put them at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/EvenMoreKarlScherer, as the voting here has already started. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)

*Delete as before. -Splash July 3, 2005 23:39 (UTC)I'm far too confused to reliably vote on this. -Splash 7 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

• Strong keep (edit: except for mechanical puzzle). I completely disagree with your claim that these are "not the standard way of categorizing puzzles" and would like to see your evidence. Edit: By the previous sentence I meant that some of the page titles are definitely standard names, whereas I now think you're referring to the content of mechanical puzzle which is a load of unencyclopædic crap. Wire puzzle, burr puzzle (edit: and word puzzle and packing problem) are notable, spam-free and are not original research: even if they were created by KarlScherer, there is absolutely no reason to delete them on their own merits. Mechanical puzzle is a notable concept that deserves an article, but the current article isn't it: it has so little salvageable content that it might as well be deleted. However, the other articles are fine and the only change I would support is to merge burr puzzle, plate-and-ring puzzle, rattle puzzle, wire puzzle, and wire-and-string puzzle into the parent page at disentanglement puzzle. These have nothing to do with the vfd debate you reference, which concerned "over 100" articles about non-notable computer implementations of non-notable games, and I can't imagine why you brought it up. —Blotwell 4 July 2005 02:22 (UTC) (substantially edited 4 July 2005 09:00 (UTC))
  • Comment Mechanical puzzle actually contains a reference for the puzzle classification being used. -Ril-, the user proposing deletion, has tagged this reference as ((dubious)) but has not given his/her justification for this on the talk page. —Blotwell 4 July 2005 02:38 (UTC) I take it back, the reference is a web page with too many caps and a pretty coloured background. Oh, my poor eyes. Blotwell 4 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)
  • Comment Furthermore, packing problem is an article about the mathematical issue of packing. The disambig page packing even says so. —Blotwell 4 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)
    • Comment The disambig page would have been created when someone typed "packing" in on the search bar, or created/clicked on a link to packing, noted there was no article, noted that the search brought up packing problem and sphere packing, and then added links to both. It is unlikely to have been created as a reflection of accuracy, but just as a reflection of the existance articles named or concerning "...packing..." in wikipedia, but no article named packing.
    • Packing problem is not about the mathematical issue. Read it, it simply gives two examples already in Sphere packing, states that there is a result that many mathematicians are surpised to learn (because it is original research, and most would dispute its existance and/or noteworthyness), and then states that it is a class of puzzles, which is also original research. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)
      • Blimey. Obviously we disagree about the interpretation of the predicate "is an article about the mathematical issue of packing". Readers can decide for themselves: I added the comment because when I did click through to read the article, I felt that your assertion had (I'm sure inadvertently) misled me about its content, and I didn't want others to feel they had been misled. —Blotwell 8 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)
• Delete. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:14 (UTC)
• DeleteThere must be some way to stop this abuse--Porturology 4 July 2005 12:38 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge as per Blotwell. I have a couple of Burr puzzles and Disentanglement puzzles myself and they are notable (if you like that sort of thing). I can only imagine these pages have got caught up in the crossfire here. Leithp July 4, 2005 14:59 (UTC)
• Keep. Disentanglement puzzles are well-known, as can be seen from pictures. I would rename packing problem to packing puzzle, since it's a well known class among puzzles. I think (I am not an expert in puzzles, just have some interest in them) the classification is somewhat questionable on Mechanical puzzle and Wire-and-string puzzle. I would also probably go for merging some of these, as per Blotwell (except that burr puzzles and wire-and-string puzzles (including only wire ones) are quite well defined categories and would merit a separate articles). Classification is of course a problem, but where isn't? For all those who don't believe these are real, please try visit a local puzzle shop and you'll see. ;-) Samohyl Jan 5 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)
  • The point is not that there are things which satisfy the description (e.g. the images), but that the division into "mechanical vs. other" is not standard, and in this case, original research by Karl Scherer. Obviously if someone categorises puzzles, e.g. Turquoise Puzzles, many things will fit the description, and allow images, and thus can be discussed, but this is obviously still original research, and a non-standard division. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)
    • Just because the classification scheme may be original research does not mean that these articles should be deleted. The solution is to reorganize the content, not discard it. Paul August ☎ July 5, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
      • It is the articles themselves that are the classification scheme. The only way to solve that original research is to remove the articles. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:26 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm voting keep until we can sort this all out. I'm not comfortable with these multiple deletion entries. I think each article should have its own vfd entry. Paul August ☎ July 5, 2005 04:52 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that grouping them together is not ideal, but had I kept the last lot seperate there would have had to be 199 VfDs rather than 1. To give you an idea of the articles worth, the VfD for those 199 was a 90% majority to delete all of them. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
    • And I also appreciate the problem with having a large number of related problematic articles. But I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, and I don't want an article deleted because it was written by a problematic editor, or because it has the "wrong" title. Paul August ☎ July 5, 2005 17:27 (UTC)
• keep. These articles are too dissimilar for a combined vfd. I don't see what is wrong with these articles. These puzzles exist. It seems that you object to the name of the articles. --MarSch 5 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)
  • The issue is not that puzzles exist which satisfy these definitions (e.g. I could define Puzzles made from red plastic, and obviously some would exist), but that the division of puzzles into such classes is not standard, and is Karl Scherer's own original research (he admits as much on another VfD). The articles serve only to push his own agenda as to how puzzles should be classified, when puzzles simply are not classified in this manner - indeed they are usually not differentiated at all. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)
    • I notice that when Scherer makes assertions about circle packings you're the first to say he's probably lying so as to get it deleted (see below), but when he claims that something is his original research (oh, and can you reference a link for that?) you cling dogmatically to the assumption that he's telling the truth so as to get it deleted. From your claim that puzzles "are usually not differentiated at all" even you should be able to guess that you haven't spent as long looking at the literature as those of us telling you these are standard classifications. As Samohyl Jan says, you should go to more puzzle shops. —Blotwell 6 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)
      • The reason that I trust him when he claims something is his own original research, is that I can find absolutely no reason for him to say so if it is not true, since it would prove the case against it - that it is his original research, thus violates Wikipedia:No original research, which thus requires deletion. There is no reason I can see that he would lie so as to delete his own work even if it is genuinely valid. Thus I see no circumstance where I would doubt his claims of committing original research; on the other hand, I can see many circumstances where I would suspect something of his is original research and/or lying. These are by no means mutually exclusive, and indeed are virtually identical. In both cases I suspect it to be original research, its just that in one, he admits it. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)
        • Anyway, why don't you believe other people telling you that the topics (except maybe packing problem, but such puzzles definitely exist) are legitimate and mostly contain no original research. There probably isn't some official classification of puzzles, since there is no authority (and also, there are crossovers). But please understand that burr puzzles, disentanglement puzzles and maybe packing puzzles (where you have a couple of pieces and the task is to put them into a box or square or make a cube from them) are different large quite well-defined categories, which are actually used commonly in practice. We could argue about exact names, but this is a fact, which you would quickly understand if you visited some puzzle shop. It's also very hard to argue about all these pages together. Samohyl Jan 7 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)
• Keep, to diverse to delete in one go. At first sight, a detailed vote would be: merge rattle puzzle, wire puzzle and wire-and-string puzzle into disentanglement puzzle, keep packing problem (which is definitely about the mathematical issue of packing, at least at the moment) and word puzzle delete and redirect packing problem and word puzzle to sphere packing and word game, respectively, abstain on mechanical puzzle and delete transport puzzle. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 5 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)
  • Packing problem is not about the mathematical issue, which even the article notes is at Sphere packing, it is about how they constitute a (non-standard, i.e. original research) class of puzzles. Note the highly abnormal terminology used in the article. Packing problem consists solely of Karl Scherers original research definition of different classes of such problems, the problems are not divided in this manner in mathematics - see Sphere packing (which also covers circle packing). The only other content in Packing problem are two examples which are already in Sphere packing.
  • The only content which is not at Sphere packing is his own definition of how to break down packing problems into different types, and his own claims about how this connects to puzzles. Thus there is absolutely nothing in it worth keeping, as all the non-original research is already at Sphere packing. (I have already voted) ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
    • I agree that packing problem contains no usable information beyond that which is already in sphere packing, except that I cannot find the first example from packing problem in sphere packing. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 5 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)
      • The first example is at Sphere packing#Circle packing. Karl Scherer's "solution" for the specific dimensions he gives that "surprises many mathematicians" is original research, and should be removed for that reason alone, even apart from my strong suspicion that it simply isn't true. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure about that, I do have a vague recollection of something, but if it is unverifiable, it should be deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 5 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)
  • Also, Word puzzle contains no content other than Word puzzle categories are followed by his own non-standard and original research categorisation. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
    • It is a list of word puzzles, I see no harm in that (I also see little research in it). I (together with others, of course) made a list of numerical analysis topics; surely that is not going to be deleted? What is a problem is that it duplicates word game, as Andreas notes below. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 5 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)
      • It is an artificial categorisation - if you note the items in the list, most of them were already VfD'd. The problem that it duplicates word game is that wikipedia does not allow articles to be forked. There should be no duplicates of articles under different names. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)
• Merge Redirect Word puzzle to Word game (delete content of Word puzzle and make it redirect to Word game). Andreas Kaufmann 5 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
  • Merge what? The only non-identical content is an original research categorisation. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)
    • Actually, I already did the merge (added Gry to Word game). So now it is safe just to redirect Word puzzle to Word game. Andreas Kaufmann 7 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)

Keep Disentanglement puzzle, merge Rattle puzzle, Wire puzzle and Wire-and-string puzzle into it. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)

Delete Packing problem. Create a category "Packing problems" instead, just like Packing problems category on MathWorld. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

As far as I can see, from Wikipedia's current content, there would only be one item in the category - Sphere packing, so the category would not be appropriate to create at this time. If the circumstances substantially change (i.e. suitable articles on genuine topics are created) then my thoughts on this matter are likely to change as well. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)

There are more packing problems in Wikipedia: Bin packing problem, Knapsack problem, Close-packing, Hexomino#Packing problems. However this is irrelevant to this Vfd. My vote was to delete the article, the category can be created later if needed, when there is suffcient number of articles on packing problems in Wikipedia. Andreas Kaufmann 7 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)

Mathworld's Sphere packing article concerns only the specific case of a 3-sphere. Wheras Wikipedia's Sphere packing article concerns the general idea of an N-sphere, and all the maths that goes with it (in theory). Mathworld is much more fragmented than wikipedia, and Wikipedia would thus not be as suited to a category. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)

Keep Mechanical puzzle, however completely rework the article. There is an excelent Mechanische Geduldspiele article in German Wikipedia. I would propose to translate it to English to create a new content of Mechanical puzzle article. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

Doing that is replacing the entire current article, as no content from it would remain. I.e. the article be deleted and created anew. This is equivalent to a vote to delete the current article. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)

Yes, if it is desirable to nuke the edit history of the article. Andreas Kaufmann 7 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)

Delete Transport puzzle, google search doesn't returns any hits beside Wikipedia mirrors and some puzzles for children, which called "Transport" only because they really display cars, trains, ships etc. Andreas Kaufmann 7 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see what the fuss is about. I really don't. These all seem to be straightforward articles on notable puzzles. The reason given for deletion seems incoherent: "the articles were all created by some guy whom we all hate". This doesn't seem like a valid reason to delete. linas 5 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
  • No, the argument is "the articles were all created by some guy doing original research". See Wikipedia:No original research. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)
    • When it comes to mathematics, there is a very fine line between original research and old research. Unlike most other endevours, math is "timeless"; 2+2=4 was as true 10,000 years ago as it is now. When mathematicians look at wikipedia with an interest in a subject, they don't limit themselves to topics that were known 50 years ago. Yes, it would be nice if he could provide some link to an article in Mathematical recreations or some such journal, but sometimes one can be quite expert and still not be aware of citations. Anyway, if you want to delete original research, I suggest you start with articles on Pokemon, TV sitcoms and rock-n-roll albums. There is a boundless quantity of the stuff in those articles. There's far, far more stuff in WP that is more frivolous and ephemeral than this. linas 14:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 2+2=4 only in certain sets. In many, indeed, in most, 2+2 is not equal to 4. See Set Theory. N.b. its an l in my user name rather than a 1. ~~~~ 16:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wikipedia is not original research. Fifelfoo 6 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
• Keep disentanglement puzzle (I've collected a few dozen of these, so I think they're notable) and merge wire puzzle and wire-and-string puzzle into it. No vote on the others. If the problem is that it's original research, it should be redone, not deleted, as it's a valid topic. Chuck July 8, 2005 12:45 (UTC)

User has 64 prior edits ~~~~ 8 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)

• • If its original research, then its content still needs deleting, a VfD to delete would result in this, as it would clear the edit history. ~~~~ 8 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)

Proposal to seaparate the vote[edit]

I propose that we vote about what to do with every page on the list separately. Samohyl Jan 7 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

I propose that the admins work it out from our votes, as would normally be the case. ~~~~ 8 July 2005 07:43 (UTC)

• However, I would point out to admins that most votes here are complex, and not as simple as keep/delete the lot (even when they start with one of these two words). ~~~~ 8 July 2005 19:37 (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.