Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Induction puzzles

Induction puzzles

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

Unreferenced page with material that suggests a promotional or advertisement slant. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see no sign of "promotional or advertisement slant" here, so can you please explain what you mean @TomStar81:? Anyway, puzzles that require the use of induction (that is, a response to the response of other participants rather than just to the initial known facts) are common and the inductive process is key to them, so I'd be surprised if there are no sources out there to indicate notability. Having said that, the article is clearly unsourced at the moment. I'll have a look around to see if I can find anything, but in the meantime I just want to suggest that this does not look like an obvious delete, and certainly not for advertising or promotion. Mr Potto (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Its the way I interpret the examples and solutions sections, they way they read to me is indicative of a how-to guide or a promotion for how to use this method to solve the following puzzles (although in fairness after going through the csd log an admin's brain is usually programmed to see the worst in an article at that point, not the best). As for the 'obvious delete' comment: if it was an obvious delete I'd have axed it on csd grounds during my csd/rc patrol last night; I put it here specifically because I wanted to make sure that the community had a chance to put in their two cents on the article since as I said above when admins go through the csd log they come out per-programmed to see the worst in an article and not the best. Its too early to tell at the moment, but given these preliminary comments I'd be of the mind that subject matter is encyclopedic but the page needs some surgery to correct the underlying flaws - in particular the absence of citations (although I'm sure other tweaks and corrections could be made as well if someone were of the mind to look into it). TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I see, thanks. I agree it does read like a "How to" guide, and if it's kept then that does need rectifying. (Btw, an article can be an "obvious delete" but still not a speedy delete - if it should obviously be deleted, but not by one of the strict CSD categories.) Mr Potto (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes article is unreferenced but topic is encyclopaedic, fits well in the series on puzzles and was genuinely useful to me today in researching the topic because of a reference to the 'King's Wise Men' puzzle in this article http://www.techradar.com/us/news/world-of-tech/uh-oh-this-robot-just-passed-the-self-awareness-test-1299362. Additionally no sign of promotional content. Mcewan (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I arrived at this article for the exact same reason, viz. recent discussion of AI self awareness, and I found it a useful resource. It would obviously be improved by the addition of references, but deleting it in entirety seems unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.31.221 (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful article with appropriate style and content.Smoobloke (talk)