Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Puzzles

Puzzles
I appreciate that this is a biggie, and I would certainly support giving the contributors to this book enough time to find a new location so that the content can be moved to before deleting it, but this simply is not a textbook. As such, it is outside our scope and should go, Jguk 17:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm inclined to say keep here. This may currently not be textbook material, but given enough work, I think that this could become an instructional resource on par with the Chess book. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be grateful if you could give some indication as to how this would be possible? If it's not textbook material (as you indicate) it should go unless it is really going to be altered (reasonably soon) into something which is textbook material. I really don't want to delete the latter, but if it isn't going to be the latter it should be deleted, Jguk 18:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, let me explain: This book may currently not be passable as a texbook, but it certainly is about a subject on which textbooks are written. After all, there is a good amount of mathematical theory involved in the subjects of "game theory" and numerical puzzle solving. There is alot of material written in this book, and I think it would be a shame to delete it all on the basis that in it's current form it doesn't quite look like a textbook. Of course, mine is just one vote, and you can feel free to disagree and vote to delete. I acknowledge that this book is going to require work to become more acceptable, and that I am not prepared currently to donate enough time to make it acceptable by myself. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. What is the definition of a textbook in the first place? I do not see as to why the Puzzles module could not be printed into something like a textbook right now. It needs work, of course, but this is not the point in question. Sboehringer


 * Keep. Contains not only puzzle examples, but some good information about different types of puzzles. Pcu123456789 00:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Am I right in interpreting the above comments as suggesting that some material (particularly that of a mathematical bent) may be worth retaining and either adding to an existing textbook or making into a textbook, but that the material that does not fit within that definition should go? Jguk 07:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I would agree that there is a good deal of unorganized information here. However, to state that portions should go would be a mistake. I believe that through more thorough organizing, all of the puzzles and relevant information can be put to use.Aznph8playa 21:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe all the puzzles can be put to use - but then the question is where? Wikibooks is for textbooks, a puzzle book is not a textbook. I'd happily help transwiki this book to another home if a suitable one can be identified. Otherwise, the bits of this book that cannot be merged into a textbook will need to go, Jguk 17:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Keep'. I think this is a very useful set of informative pages.  I do not see why it should be removed.  I will not risk other sections by pointing out that material of similar "frivolous" nature :-) exists elsewhere in WikiBooks, and I do not have a problem with it. Gbalse


 * 'Keep'. I like puzzles and I plan to come back and use them... (AL)


 * Comment We do have a problem, I think. There are some interesting puzzles in here, particularily the mathematical puzzles, and it is great if a wiki textbook can have interactive features. However, this book consists almost completely of examples of puzzles. Because Wikibooks is not for fiction, it is not tenable to have a Wikibook filled with fictional puzzle scenarios. Because Wikibooks is an instructional resource, I would expect a puzzles Wikibook to have more information on why puzzles exist and how to solve them -- but our Puzzles book mostly links to Wikipedia for that information! (Maybe the puzzles should just move to Wikipedia.) I think that a lot of arguments for deleting the Jokebook also apply to Puzzles. --Kernigh 17:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Keep'. Wikipedia was the first place I searched for an article like this and I think it should be at least moved to wikipedia. I don't see any reason in deleting it from Wikibooks though.Dbproguy 04:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Kept. Concensus was too keep this one, although I think there is some concensus that it needs to be cleaned up, or expanded. I'm going to mark it as such on the module page. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove the Bridge Crossing
As I am now cleaning up the Puzzle wikibooks on Puzzles/River Crossing, I came across this pages that needed to be deleted due to the pages are listed as list of puzzles which does not add depth to the puzzle wikibooks (which was causing the book to be nominated for deletion at first place) also this was duplicate of the contents I will be writing later on :


 * 1) Puzzles/Logic puzzles/Bridge Crossing/Solution
 * 2) Puzzles/Logic puzzles/Bridge Crossing
 * 3) Puzzles/How do you ... ?/Crossing the Bridge
 * 4) Puzzles/How do you ... ?/Crossing the Bridge/Solution


 * this was proposd by Special:Diff/3567425 on 2 September 2019 by User:Encik Tekateki. I am "bumping" it to see if anyone has any comments, including the proposer after this length of time. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For all intention and purposes, this Puzzle book is focusing on the in depth discussion of the various puzzles and instead of "standard puzzle and solutions" which you can buy off from Amazon. See my created pages of similar topics Puzzles/River Crossing which discuss the origins and derivatives :) . Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 04:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)