Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transport puzzle

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 keep. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transport puzzle[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article has been listed twice in July 2005, under MoreKarlScherer and KarlSchererRevisited5. The article has not changed much.

I can't find any evidence, on Google Books or elsewhere, that the term "transport puzzle" is commonly used to classify games as done here. The article cites no sources. As far as I can tell, this article consists of original research, because it invents a classification and applies it to existing games; furthermore, this term (in itself) doesn't appear to be notable. (Obviously the games themselves are notable.)

The keep votes on the earlier listings don't rebut these criticisms. In addition, the notability policy is more concrete now than it was then. If this term is in fact in common use, I'd love to hear it (with reliable sources added to the article), but those sources are a long time coming. Wikiacc (¶) 01:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also my comment below, after the discussion was relisted. Wikiacc (¶) 14:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc (¶) 01:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - likely a blantant violation of WP:ORIGINAL and may meet CSD under WP:A11. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the prior nominations, I'd prefer to get consensus first -- but I won't object if someone else deletes. Wikiacc (¶) 01:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - After checking the article carefully again: while it's pretty clear that the term was made up, it's not plainly indicated that it was made up by the author or someone the author knows. I think this should go through AFD instead of WP:A11. Wikiacc (¶) 01:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - appears to be WP:OR. - Scarpy (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find absolutely no outside use of the term "transport puzzle" being used as it is in this article. At best, I think this falls under WP:SYNTH – someone classified a bunch of games/puzzles together and coined a term for them. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sourcing whatsover, here or with a Google search - term fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on the relisting. I did do a WP:BEFORE search, and the only sources I could find were a lot of articles about transportation themed children’s puzzles. Since that’s not the subject of the article in question, and there’s a more common use of the term than the usage in the nominated article, I felt the article failed WP:GNG. The newly identified sources do not change that belief. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had deleted this article, but per discussion on my talk page, I have restored it for the time being and relisted this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is the comment that was placed on my talk page prior to this discussion being reopened (diff, diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to take this one to DRV but thought you might be persuaded to restore and/or reopen the AFD. It was claimed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transport puzzle that absolutely no RS could be found using this term but I believe there has been a serious lack of WP:BEFORE on this one. Several people claimed to have searched gbooks without success. I found two relevant hits on the first page of results: this symposium has a passing mention in connection with Sokoban, but at least it supports the definition of the term; iPhone Game Blueprints has a section on "Transport puzzles" over three pages and gives as examples 15 puzzle, Klotski, and The fox, the goose, and the bag of beans, all listed in our article either directly or as a member of a higher group. Admittedly, that last is a print-on-demand book, but there are other book hits and also a number of scholarly papers. One of the few not behind a paywall is What determines difficulty of transport puzzles?. Their definition is in line with our article, and of the puzzles studies (Sokoban, Rush Hour (puzzle) and Replacement Puzzle) two of the three are listed in our article. Another is "Generic Puzzle Level Generation for Deterministic Transportation Puzzles". There are a few dozen more that are inaccessible, but snippets indicate that many are very relevant such as "Genetic algorithms and the art of Zen". Regards, SpinningSpark 15:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Weak Keep an argument was made on Northamerica1000's user page that included some sources where the term was used. I disagree that there was a "serious lack of WP:BEFORE" as the depth of these sources seem questionable to me, and I remember doing some quick searches and not being impressed. That being said, it seems like enough that a stub could be written with them. - Scarpy (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Scarpy: I don't know how you can say that "the depth of these sources seem questionable" when I have provided two scholarly papers with the term in the title and are entirely concerned with properties of these puzzles. SpinningSpark 07:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can because your comment doesn't time travel. I'm saying it because that's what I did and what appears to be passing using of a term in a scholarly paper is not the kind of depth that impresses me. I am non-plussed when editors say something like "you obviously didn't spend hours searching for and carefully reading every obscure paper that mentions this topic to see that there is a teaspoon of WP:RS. What a serious lack of WP:BEFORE!" when all that time you spent scolding you could write quick summary based on those sources and end the conversation. You're welcome for the keep vote. Please mind WP:BLUDGEON. - Scarpy (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep due to the article now having enough sources to at least be a very small stub. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - may change to a delete !vote if any of said sources are deemed unreliable. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my rationale above. Thanks to NorthAmerica1000 for relisting. SpinningSpark 07:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator. Thanks Spinningspark for the exhaustive reference search. I'm not convinced by the book references, but the academic papers (which I admit I hadn't checked thoroughly enough) are clear. I suspect that when this article was first written, it was original research, but the term was later adopted by the academic literature. (Try finding references before 2005.) Nonetheless, if it's been adopted by reliable sources, we should document it as it's used. Spinningspark convincingly points to the Coldridge and Amos papers, including "Genetic algorithms and the art of Zen" (doi:10.1109/BICTA.2010.5645284) and doi:10.1007/s11047-011-9284-7. I support keeping the article upon (1) removing all text that fails WP:OR and (2) replacing with the definition given in the sources, a summary of the scholarly literature, and a list of puzzles that reliable sources have specifically referred to as transport puzzles. This would require a near-complete rewrite of the article. I am happy to help with that process. (We could also consider merging with motion planning.) Wikiacc (¶) 14:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- For further support for my suspicion, note that the Coldridge and Amos papers' prototypical example of a transport puzzle is Sokoban. But the early literature on Sokoban (for example, doi:10.1016/S0925-7721(99)00017-6 and [1]) only uses the term motion planning. And the article at Sokoban didn't refer to it as a transport puzzle until 8 January 2004, while this article was created in 2002. (It's hard to draw definitive conclusions when the article is so old.) Wikiacc (¶) 14:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc (¶) 14:47, 29 August 2018 (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.