Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eight queens puzzle solutions

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eight queens puzzle solutions

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

A collection of code snippets in various programming languages apparently concocted by an editor, violating WP:NOTHOWTO and possibly WP:V. Prod was removed with an edit note of this is a classic computer science issue regarding algorithms (not just code dumps), although that needs clarifying in article. However, the actual "issue" is discussed in Eight queens puzzle, and the code snippets were farmed out because of size (ignoring their unencyclopedic nature). Compare also WP:Village pump (policy)#policy on computer code. --Latebird (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. In case the VP thread referred to above is archived while this AfD is running, here's a permalink to its current content. Deor (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The code is unreferenced and I suspect it is wp:OR by the editors. (A classic solution to the problem is in Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs, but it is not listed.) Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 12:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a case of "WP is not a how-to guide." There is already an article on the puzzle itself, the information maybe could be added there if it's not already. Or else an external link to the source for this article could be added. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge back into Eight queens puzzle, keeping only code that (1) illustrates the different algorithmic approaches, and (2) can be sourced. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the code is worth keeping. The main article talks about the algorithms which is the interesting bit and the bit people can find citations for. The code is just random what the cat dragged in and unlikely to be particularly interesting even if somehow a cite is found. Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge as per Radagast3.Autarch (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the unsourced code has been removed. A sourced code has been added, but it is in an obscure language that is not understandable by someone not versed in the language. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Bubba73. The ideas for how a solution may be constructed is already in the main article on the Eight queens problem; code/pseudocode crosses the line into instruction manual territory. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the main article is already well developed with information about algorithmic solutions. I see no advantage or improvement that would be achieved by merging any of this article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2010 (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.