48:. There are two issues involved here. One is the issue of whether the page is original research. The article contains nothing but mathematical derivations, which would seem 'obvious' and not in need of sourcing to some mathematicians. The article could do with a description of why the derivations produce the correct answer sourced from an reliable source outside Knowledge, but this seems reasonable. The description of
697:. Probably what gets people's hackles up is that there is a big chart. This may bear some resemblance to things like multiplication tables, where obviously it is inappropriate to have them up to some large number (up to 12 is considered standard). But it doesn't seem to me the level of detail here is excessive, although I flip-flop on that. Frankly, I thought this would be more controversial than it has! --
688:: I definitely agree with Geometry guy that this is not OR. I'm rather surprised several people have stated that as a reason. But it seems to me that the obvious deletion reason, not a manual or collection of indiscriminate information, is a fairly good one. I'm personally on the fence about this one, since I think there are some subtle issues here. It depends on whether you regard
155:), the consensus until now has been to keep, although the previous discussion agreed upon the move to its current title. I see absolutely no hope for this to ever become an encyclopedia article, and it is certainly not one now. Helpful information to "Omaha hold'em" players and mathematicians, indeed, but it has no place on Knowledge.
619:. I think this one is a bit more subtle than it seems at first sight and is certainly worth more thought than "Delete - OR" (although I have to admit that my first thought was "delete" as well). This article provides derivations of the numbers in some of the probability tables in the parent article which I will call
282:
page. In writing this article, rather than simply providing the tables of odds and probability, which you can find many places on the
Internet, the intent is to provide the derivations behind the tables. These are obviously too long to include in the main article, so thus the subpages. The subject
269:
I normally deal with articles that are too atrocious for
Knowledge - AFD and similar. I wonder if your article on poker probability is too good for Knowledge. I found it as the second legitimate article on Knowledge's list of longest pages. On a subject like this, that seems odd. Obviously, I'm
383:
Knowledge is not a textbook for math students; it is an encyclopedia. Please consider the material on the basis of its appropriateness as an encyclopedia article. There are other projects, such as
Wikibooks and Wikiversity, that may accept such material aimed toward students; however, Knowledge is
671:
rather than damages it. Of course both articles need to cite web and printed matter to support the common knowledge that this is how Poker probabilities are calculated in general, and in Omaha in particular. I think that would be easy for an expert to do, and so is not justification for deletion.
298:
As I started writing the article, it wasn't clear to me that some of the derivation tables were going to get so large. As I've continue with the article, adding sections, some of the derivations, in particular this one, have gotten rather large. A lot of the size is due to the table mark up and
60:
by the definition, and shouldn't really be used to source itself. However, the issue of whether the content is appropriate for
Knowledge is more important. Giving long derivations isn't really the sort of thing that would be found in an encyclopedia; it's much more the sort of thing that would be
692:
information on derivations "indiscriminate" or necessary for conveying understanding. Certainly in many mathematics articles, if I inserted a simple sentence or two giving a little more detail on something that could appear mysterious or confusing, I can't imagine people complaining to me about
288:
The reasoning behind providing the derivations, which in some cases are quite expansive, is because this is precisely the type of information that makes the discussion of poker probability encyclopedic, rather than a simple regurgitation of tables. Without the derivations, the numbers in the
303:. The final disposition of the derivation tables is still an open issue, but I think they add an encyclopedic value to the article that sets it apart from the many poker probability pages on the Web that are just giving the resulting numbers and not exposing the math behind them. —
632:
Now, an article isn't OR just because it was produced by a wikipedian (all articles are), neither is it OR just because it doesn't cite sources (we'd lose most of our content if we deleted all that): it is OR when it contains new information. There is little evidence for that
65:
appropriate (and will still serve the same purpose, of backing up the assertions in the 'parent article'). I've asked the
Wikibooks administrators to transwiki this article there; this closure is without predjudice against the article also being transwikied to Wikiversity.
365:
A spectacular resource to point students to, who are encountering the idea of combinatorial probabilities for the first time. Even if you'd only ever actually work through a couple of these as worked examples, what I like is the way this table succinctly shows that for
152:
654:
links to a site which calculates these probabilities, which means that there is effectively a published computer program carrying out these derivations. This is of course, a very poor source, so is it reliable? Well, the article we are considering, as
109:
104:
113:
96:
270:
not going to nominate the article for deletion or anything similar - and, as an admin, you know the rules at least as well as I do - but I'd like an explanation for why it's so long, and why all the material belongs.
662:
This article itself has no references. We don't, however, normally delete articles without references unless there is a good reason to do so (copyvio, libel, living person etc.). In this case, unless we want to put
256:
Ah, this reminds me of my early days on
Knowledge, back when I used to be a mischievous vandal. :) I had the following discussion with Doug Bell, who created the article. I copy it now verbatim from his talk
550:. Looks quite interesting and I think there should a Wiki somewhere for collections of verifiable but non-encylopedic information - there clearly is a high demand for one. But its not a subject for Knowledge.
299:
math expressions. I've considered whether the final article when done should include the derivation subpages or not, but until the article is finished, I've been adding them under the understanding that
293:
tables have to be taken at face value—there's no way to see where the numbers come from. By providing the derivations, the complete set of formulas necessary to derive the probabilities are available.
420:? Fine, but how is it appropriate to an encyclopedia? As you suggest below, moving it to Wikiversity may be an acceptable way to keep and maintain the material, but Knowledge is, first and foremost,
605:
Certainly shouldn't get lost. Transwiki to
Wikiversity and/or Wikibooks. I also like Septentrionalis' subpage idea. As far as I know mentioning it at the talk page wouldn't violate guidelines.
61:
found in an appendix of a textbook or other such work, as many of the comments below indicate. This content isn't appropriate for
Knowledge, but there are sister projects where this content
640:
is common knowledge among Omaha players and can be found on numerous websites. So if you think about it for a minute, this means that if the article we are considering is OR, then so is
424:, and arguments on behalf of keeping material in the encyclopedia should be based in their appropriateness for this cause, not in the usefulness of the information for another cause.
478:
It could be appropriate for
Wikiversity, and I'd be glad to transwiki it over there. The content is, in any case, certainly more appropriate to Wikiversity than it is to Knowledge.
644:
itself! I mean, how do these other websites obtain the numbers? There is pretty much only one way to derive probabilities in a problem like this: enumerate the possibilities using
374:
a (quite short) formula for the probability. So think of its value like that of a picture -- not necessarily in each pixel, but in the impression overall conveyed by the whole.
337:-- Well, if and when this thing gets deleted, I think it should definitely be preserved somewhere, just because it is perhaps the most indiscriminate article I have ever seen :)--
341:
329:
164:
722:
704:
676:
609:
597:
576:
561:
542:
520:
487:
473:
457:
433:
411:
393:
378:
353:
248:
235:
215:
189:
407:
speaks directly to this issue(indiscriminate collection...) and other issues, but I rather like the article and would like to see it stick around contrary to the policy. --
136:
225:
100:
151:, with no references cited for any of the claims made, and it is highly unencyclopedic. Previously nominated for deletion in February (discussion:
92:
84:
588:
as a justification for believing the tables are correctly copied and not from sources with typoes. This is a reasonable function of a talk page.
263:
17:
170:
Additionally, the only edits made to the page since it survived its last AfD have been housekeeping tasks, such as adding the
56:, rather than requiring sources itself, is an interesting statement; however, bear in mind that Knowledge itself is not a
77:
446:
585:
572:. I imagine that if the material in the present article was moved, it would be legal to link to it from Knowledge.
737:
36:
736:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
664:
651:
641:
637:
624:
620:
290:
279:
53:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
645:
593:
324:
321:
311:
271:
557:
537:
483:
429:
389:
185:
160:
569:. Original research. Perhaps it could go in Wikibooks? See for example this probability textbook
283:
doesn't really stand on its own as an article, so it's not a "main" article but rather a subpage.
673:
453:
417:
174:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
667:
itself up for deletion, there is a good reason for keeping this one: it actually helps with
470:
408:
338:
74:
656:
589:
573:
153:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making low hands
719:
552:
534:
479:
425:
385:
349:
Is it indiscriminate? Are you suggesting it is not complete, and should be extended?
304:
181:
156:
701:
694:
507:
500:
404:
300:
200:
144:
530:
514:
504:
450:
208:
204:
148:
57:
627:
itself, but these particular derivations are simply too long for the main article.
445:. The reply by the author of the article quoted above makes it clear that this is
130:
668:
606:
375:
350:
232:
71:
67:
147:
and indiscriminate collection of information. This article consists solely of
659:
has suggested, actually provides a way to check the reliability of the source.
212:
698:
245:
52:
in the discussion as to how this article is in fact itself a source for
510:. This is an obvious case. Why are we even having this discussion?
403:
Well, wikipedia is not a student resource, it is an encyclopedia.
730:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
93:
Probability derivations for making low hands in Omaha hold 'em
85:
Probability derivations for making low hands in Omaha hold 'em
264:
Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making low hands
570:
126:
122:
118:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
740:). No further edits should be made to this page.
718:. It's a how-to manual, which is not allowed. --
533:. Alternatively, transwiki it to Wikiversity. --
278:Notice also that this is a subpage of the main
636:Indeed, it is claimed that the information in
8:
623:for short. Other numbers are derived within
224:: This debate has been included in the
469:--Wikiversity might be an option...--
7:
24:
370:of these classes of hands, there
226:list of Science-related deletions
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
586:Talk:Poker probability (Omaha)
307:08:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
274:07:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
1:
648:, exactly as in this article.
314:06:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
310:Good answer. I'm impressed.
757:
723:22:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
705:07:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
677:18:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
610:22:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
598:20:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
577:20:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
562:19:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
543:19:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
521:19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
488:19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
474:19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
458:19:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
434:19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
412:18:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
394:19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
379:17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
354:17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
342:14:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
330:12:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
291:Poker probability (Omaha)
280:Poker probability (Omaha)
249:15:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
236:08:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
216:03:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
190:03:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
165:03:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
54:Poker probability (Omaha)
733:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
244:per nom. (and userfy).
384:not one such project.
319:
301:Knowledge is not paper
46:transwiki to Wikibooks
716:delete from mainspace
646:binomial coefficients
260:
70:16:32, 29 June 2007 (
712:Userfy or transwiki
596:
531:original research
455:
447:original research
238:
229:
203:a game guide, no
149:original research
50:User:Geometry guy
748:
735:
592:
560:
540:
517:
513:
454:
416:In other words,
327:
230:
220:
207:cited, possibly
205:reliable sources
179:
173:
134:
116:
83:
34:
756:
755:
751:
750:
749:
747:
746:
745:
744:
738:deletion review
731:
714:but definitely
657:Septentrionalis
590:Septentrionalis
551:
538:
515:
511:
422:an encyclopedia
325:
233:John Vandenberg
177:
171:
107:
91:
88:
58:reliable source
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
754:
752:
743:
742:
726:
725:
709:
708:
707:
680:
679:
660:
649:
634:
629:
628:
613:
612:
600:
584:to subpage of
579:
564:
545:
524:
523:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
461:
460:
439:
438:
437:
436:
398:
397:
396:
359:
358:
357:
356:
318:
317:
316:
315:
295:
294:
285:
284:
259:
258:
251:
239:
218:
193:
192:
143:Quite simply,
141:
140:
87:
82:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
753:
741:
739:
734:
728:
727:
724:
721:
717:
713:
710:
706:
703:
700:
696:
691:
687:
684:
683:
682:
681:
678:
675:
670:
666:
661:
658:
653:
650:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
630:
626:
622:
618:
615:
614:
611:
608:
604:
601:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
580:
578:
575:
571:
568:
565:
563:
559:
556:
555:
549:
546:
544:
541:
536:
532:
528:
525:
522:
519:
518:
509:
506:
502:
498:
497:Strong Delete
495:
489:
485:
481:
477:
476:
475:
472:
468:
465:
464:
463:
462:
459:
456:
452:
448:
444:
441:
440:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
414:
413:
410:
406:
402:
399:
395:
391:
387:
382:
381:
380:
377:
373:
369:
364:
361:
360:
355:
352:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
340:
336:
332:
331:
328:
323:
313:
309:
308:
306:
302:
297:
296:
292:
287:
286:
281:
277:
276:
275:
273:
267:
265:
255:
252:
250:
247:
243:
240:
237:
234:
227:
223:
219:
217:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
195:
194:
191:
187:
183:
176:
169:
168:
167:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
138:
132:
128:
124:
120:
115:
111:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
89:
86:
81:
79:
76:
73:
69:
64:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
732:
729:
715:
711:
689:
685:
674:Geometry guy
616:
602:
581:
566:
553:
547:
526:
496:
466:
442:
421:
400:
371:
367:
362:
334:
333:
320:
268:
261:
253:
241:
221:
196:
142:
62:
45:
43:
31:
28:
180:tag to it.
594:PMAnderson
574:EdJohnston
529:, blatant
418:WP:ILIKEIT
312:YechielMan
272:YechielMan
720:Trovatore
603:Transwiki
480:AmiDaniel
426:AmiDaniel
386:AmiDaniel
305:Doug Bell
262:== About
199:per nom,
182:AmiDaniel
157:AmiDaniel
617:Comments
471:Cronholm
409:Cronholm
339:Cronholm
175:verylong
137:View log
686:Comment
467:Comment
451:Lambiam
335:Comment
322:Yechiel
254:Comment
110:protect
105:history
702:(Talk)
695:WP:NOT
607:Malc82
567:Delete
558:scribe
548:Delete
527:Delete
508:WP:NOR
501:WP:NOT
443:Delete
405:WP:NOT
376:Jheald
351:Jheald
242:Delete
201:WP:NOT
197:Delete
145:WP:NOT
114:delete
68:ais523
665:Pp(O)
652:Pp(O)
642:Pp(O)
638:Pp(O)
633:here.
625:Pp(O)
621:Pp(O)
539:desat
516:demon
505:WP:RS
449:. --
257:page:
211:. --
209:WP:OR
131:views
123:watch
119:links
16:<
690:some
669:WP:V
582:Move
535:Core
499:per
484:talk
430:talk
401:Keep
390:talk
363:Keep
222:Note
213:Kesh
186:talk
161:talk
127:logs
101:talk
97:edit
699:C S
554:WjB
368:any
326:Man
266:==
246:JJL
231:--
228:.
135:– (
503:,
486:)
432:)
392:)
372:is
188:)
178:}}
172:{{
163:)
129:|
125:|
121:|
117:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
80:)
66:--
63:is
512:^
482:(
428:(
388:(
184:(
159:(
139:)
133:)
95:(
78:C
75:T
72:U
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.