Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/River crossing 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. John254 01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

River crossing puzzle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No sources, no evidence of notability. Oren0 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These puzzles have been recognized in mathematical scholarly literature and are indeed known as river crossing puzzles. The concept goes back over 1,200 years to Alcuin. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These are famous logic puzzles. As I remember the trick is to take the chicken back with you and swap him with the fox after you've dropped the grain off. Nick mallory (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Don't confuse this page with Fox, goose and bag of beans puzzle or the missionaries and cannibals problem, both of which are well known and well studied. Perhaps this page should be merged into one of thise. This page attempts to create some overreaching arch between these and the other puzzles it links to, but contains no substance itself. Perhaps an alternate solution is to Merge all of the river crossing puzzles into this page. Oren0 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Manages to establish that it is a separate topic, but it does need come real sources. DGG (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—I've added some references and attempted to improve the article. Spacepotato (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I had considered the suggested merge to have merit, the current version of this article is well-sourced, and in a manner which is strongly suggestive that "crossings" are a notable variety of puzzle (ie. the "overreaching arch" is in secondary sources, and is not merely a subtle attempt at original research). Moreover, the list aspect of the article provides a useful navigational aid between specific instances. --Sturm 10:41, 8 February 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.