Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XKnight Game

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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XKnight Game[edit]

New puzzle type with no attempt to establish any sort of notability. No reliable sources, just some link to a message board that's presented as possibly the origin of the puzzle. Original version of article was small and seemed to have been created solely to advertise a website to play the game. Google search for "XKnight Game" finds only 7 hits: that website with the game to play (saghaei.net), this Wikipedia article, and a couple of message boards where "Saghei" posted info about it. Pure promotion for a horribly trivial new puzzle type most likely created by the guy who made this article. DreamGuy (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete no verified notability. Mukadderat (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author's response: In the last revision I tried to make it notable and I'm afraid further attempt may be illogical. Whether the topic is inherently notable I am sure it is. The proof, which I can not include in the article, is that I myself with a totally different background and career (but interested in math) made a lot of effort to write it. I think notability is a very relative term. To whom it is notable and to whom it is not, it depends on the personal attitude and interests.
Regarding the lack of reliable source it is due to the fact that it is indeed new. Although its base (the knight tour problem) is very old, it is a new puzzle (as DreamGuy stated "A new puzzle"). Prior to writing this article I found only two source by searching the web, and they were already initiated by myself (as DreamGuy detected). How can I include a reliable source if it does not exist? Although there are a large body of references regarding knight's tour problem none of them addressed this new puzzle idea. and I hate to make the reference section inflate unnecessarily by including references to knight's tour problem. The question arise is how the readers believe the idea, and how to prevent falsification? I think this needs a critical mind familiar with the topic, to criticize it and possibly disprove it. This may need retaining the article for a longer period than 5 days. None of the comments given by the DreamGuy or Mukadderat discuss the issue or criticize it, and they sufficed to say it is not notable. It may be better first to show some familiarity with the topic then convince the people that it is not notable.
Addressing the original version of the article as small and advertising, is unfair. You should judge the present state of the article. Initial size of the article is not an important issue and it may grow in time by further contribution. The referenced web site has noting to advertise and its reference was deleted in the revision. indeed the mentioned software is free open source, therefore it is not very difficult to deduce that motivation for linking to the address can be academic. Anyhow pure placement of one's web page address does not prove it's advertisement.
I realized that use of XKnight term may be considered an instance of neologism. In the revision I used it only in the reference section to refer to the forum topic. I was unable (or did not know how) to change the title of the page. It may be more appropriate to title it as knight tour game. In this way the google search will brings huge amounts of information to convince it's not a horribly trivial new puzzle. --Simnaser (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reading your argument, it was your own statement of How can I include a reliable source if it does not exist? that made me decide against keeping this article. I understand your point and I do think this is a valid, well-thought-out puzzle format. As a programmer and a bit of a logic-puzzle-geek myself, I personally think this idea is great, and would love to see more of them. Inclusion in Wikipedia, however, is based on notability guidelines, which are not dependant on personal attitudes and interests. They require that reliable outside sources are used for verification and to show that subjects are of interest. If, for instance, a published newspaper offered these puzzles in the same way they offer crosswords or sudoku, or a significant puzzle/math magazine or website writes an article about it, then it would meet Wikipedia's guidelines. This type of puzzle must be promoted to puzzle fans and the media before it can be considered for Wikipedia. Addionne (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:Notability. Although I like it, I don't think that any game can be inherently notable, and notability for inclusion into this encyclopeadia is not at all a relative term (although the rules aren't always crystal clear). And, as the author said: this is a new game, there hasn't been significant coverage in relieable sources, and unless it does, it has no place here.
The knight tour problem can't provide notbility for this puzzle, by the way. If the puzzle catches on and e.g. it's being used in magazines or newspapers similarily to sudokus or chess puzzles, I can see a section in Knight's tour or Chess puzzle, but it has to go notability first, encyclopaedic article later. --Amalthea^Talk 12:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the author that notability is relative. Chess is more notable than Monopoly (game), which in turn is more notable than Squander, which in turn is more notable than this game. "To whom it is notable and to whom it is not, it depends on the personal attitude and interests." That's true, but for our purposes, we need an indication that it's notable to enough people. So far it hasn't caught on enough to meet that standard. To me, it looks more interesting than Sudoku, but that's irrelevant. Notability doesn't depend on the game's intrinsic merits. JamesMLane t c 19:21, 3 August 2008 (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.