Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited6

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. The article will be kept. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wire puzzle

Sorry about this, but Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer ended with no consensus, due to many people voting to keep simply because they didn't want to vote on all the articles listed at once, so now they are listed seperately. This is the VfD for

• Wire puzzle

For the reason to delete this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer

• Delete ~~~~ 00:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with disentanglement puzzle, a pretty decent article could be made of these types of puzzles, I think. Slike2 01:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to disentanglement puzzle Decapod73 02:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with mechanical puzzle (or disentanglement puzzle, if kept). -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the rest, under whichever title makes the most sense. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Mechanical puzzle. JamesBurns 09:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into disentanglement puzzle (or mechanical puzzle, if disentanglement puzzle ends up being merged into that). To save -Ril- time, I have 79 prior edits. Chuck 18:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• strong strong keep. Wire puzzles are interesting, notable, eminently wikifiable. They deserve a page to themselves. Merging with disentanglement puzzle misses the point: wire puzzles appear in literature (can't quite find it right now but I think it was Stephen Potter), have uses in psychology (frustration management), appear in discussions of topology, all in ways unique to wire puzzles. There are notable companies that specialize in wire puzzles. One nearly cost me my sanity when I was a boy. What kind of engineering tolerances are necessary to make a wire puzzle? Is there a go/no go gauge in the factory? If so, how does it work; if not, what kind of quality control is in place? What is the rejection rate in such factories? Are wire puzzles made by hand, or some weird machine? Keep it! I read somewhere that they were being made as early as 1880. What kind of hardware did those guys have? I want to know the answer to these questions, and its much more likely that some knowledgeable wikipedian will do us the service of editing a page on wire puzzles if such a page existed. Robinh 21:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • • I'm not sure that I believe you. I think what you are referring to is the game where people have to avoid touching the wire, which is a different thing entirely. ~~~~ 06:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • reply Hi Ril four tildes. What do you mean you don't believe me? Which bit don't you believe? I can dig out the Stephen Potter reference. The puzzle I'm referring to is sometimes called the "twisted nail puzzle". The "avoid touching the wire game" is totally unrelated. I repeat: which bit don't you believe? regards, Robinh 07:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • reply II. Hello again Ril four tildes. Me again. Right, I understand why you don't believe me. The problem is that there are two different types of wire puzzle. The first type, as discussed in wire puzzle, involves the topology of the system. The type I was thinking of has two twisted nails, which cannot be separated unless held at precisely the right angle, and gently eased apart. This type (AFAICS) isn't mentioned on wire puzzle. Maybe we should make a page called twisted nail puzzle and everyone would be happy. Come to think of it, I'll do it at lunchtime today. Best wishes Ril, Robinh 09:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • comment, good points, but I think that if merged it will allow the section to expand naturally until it becomes too big for that article, at which point it will be moved out into its own. If you can provide enough information to make that article more than a stub, then I would vote keep as well.Slike2 00:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • reply Hi Slike2. That's fair enough. I'm afraid I don't regard myself as sufficiently knowledgeable to add material. Not right now anyway. But I do plan to do some research on the topic. What is the point of merging a perfectly good stub, only to have to hive it off later? best wishes Robinh 07:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to disentanglement puzzle. -- Lochaber 14:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to disentanglement puzzle. Agree that these are fascinating as puzzles and as constructs, but that if the section grows it will naturally become an article in itself later. --Bambaiah 11:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; this has the potential to grow into a full-length article. linas 15:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as I, again, so absolutly no reason to delete this. --R.Koot 16:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it deserves its own article. Otherwise merge and redirect to disentanglement puzzle. Paul August ☎ 17:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Stop listing these things for deletion and take up merge/redirect issues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Games instead. - dcljr (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Like linas, I think there's potential here. --Laura Scudder | Talk 23:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• KeepCount Iblis 21:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

user has 65 prior edits ~~~~ 21:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a large number of edits from the time before I made my user account. I have started a number of high quality scientific pages here. Quality (i.e. starting or contributing to high quality pages) not quantity (chatting on talk pages) should count. Count Iblis 22:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Then sign here when logged out, so that it proves your statement that you are the same as the IP that made those edits. ~~~~ 13:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste time trying to convince -Ril- you're not a sockpuppet. The admins around here are generally smart enough to distinguish the real sockpuppets from legitimate contributors who haven't been around for long. If I were worried about being discounted as a sockpuppet, I wouldn't have posted my own number of edits. Chuck 17:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep these articles have potential Salsb 01:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this ligitimate article. Karol 06:24, July 21, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.