Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bank and mermaid

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 Supertask#Some_interesting_supertasks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 04:42Z

Bank and mermaid

Bank and mermaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I nominate this article for deletion on the grounds of a lack of verifiability. I tried to look up some sources for it on the Internet, but the only sources I found are on Wikipedia, or on mirror sites of Wikipedia, with only one (which is a blog) that wasn't related to Wikipedia. I know that a person on the article's talk page said that the story came from a 1980 magazine, but this search leads me to suspect that this topic has very little, if any, significance in the field of paradoxes (so little notability).

Furthermore, the Balls and vase problem article appears to be a more well-known variant of this infinity paradox. It deals with the same topics: a specific number of numbered objects put in one place, then one taken out, over an infinite amount of time, and the question on how many of these objects would be left in that place after infinity. A Google search on the vase or urn problem turns up much more results and verifiable (aka professional) sources than the bank and mermaid problem does, so I believe that this article covers everything the bank and mermaid article says, in a more familiar context.

Breed Zona 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The three solutions, and their treatments (all in one, all in the other, countably infinite in both), don't even appear at the balls and vase article. I'd be happier seeing this article deleted if the information appeared in both places. Until then, I favor weak keep. CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like this is one person's example, not used by others. As noted above, essentially zero Google presence outside of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - As much as I'd like to see this incorporated into Ball and Vase or Ross-Littlewood Paradox, etc., there's really no way to legally slide it in without bringing this example up. The example itself is non-notable. --Alksub 09:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - It appears that Bank and mermaid and Monty Hell problem both have no sources other than newsgroup postings. From purely the standpoint of references, these are both on the same footing regarding verifiability. To my knowledge, at the present time all the content on Monty Hell problem for example, however clever and well thought out, was worked out by frequenters of Wikipedia and a newsgroup thread. --Alksub 09:52, 20 December 2006 (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.