Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safe sex makespan

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 of the debate was Keep. D e ath phoenix 16:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safe sex makespan

Mildly funny example of pure bullocks...and it seems it went through AfD once before, according to the talk page, but there is no indication of what the verdict was. --Ruby 23:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. This is the "safe sex" version of the "glove problem", see [1], as Kappa pointed out in the last discussion debate about this topic here. It is a real combinatorics / optimization problem, and the mathematics presented is sound. It would need somebody to check the sources given in the MathWorld link, to find out all the alternate names, and to turn this more into an article about the problem than about wrong solutions for it. At the very least, consider transwiki to an appropriate Wikibook on operations research. Kusma (討論) 23:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am no longer convinced that this is more than an example for an OR textbook. It should be proved to occur more prominently to deserve an encyclopedia entry of its own. Kusma (討論) 03:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Delete~~ Earlier VfD is at [2] It's certainly the type of problem Operations Research deals with ~~but I haven't the time to see if it's a real or joke variant. Highly likely to be original research and also apparently is unverifiable.~~ See below. Dlyons493 Talk 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any event the talk page needs a banner with the final disposition of the debate, or someone will come along and do this a third time. --Ruby 23:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counting up the votes would appear to give it no consensus. I don't know enough about the topic myself, so no vote. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 23:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The mathematics is valid, but it definitely needs sources to prove that the contributor didn't simply invent the problem statement on the spot (in which case it would be non-notable original research). Deco 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Mathworld site has this reference for the glove problem: "Vardi, I. The Condom Problem. Ch. 10 in Computational Recreations in Mathematica. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 203-222, 1991." so (if that is the same thing) there seems to be somebody else giving it a similar name. Kusma (討論) 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In any case, this article should be renamed to something more accurate. Kusma (討論) 00:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about rename to Glove problem and list it as a sub section. --Salix alba (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless serious references can be found. One man wearing N condoms, and another one starting with no condoms and progressively piling on N condoms left at other women by previous men... Gross... Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a legitimate—albeit peculiar—problem. But I can't find any legitimate sources on it so it seems to smack of original research. -- Krash (Talk) 01:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of many Operations Research problems. This is no more notable than any other. Monkeyman 02:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: source it or kill it. --CyclePat 03:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is mentioned at rec.puzzles Hall of Fame also sci.math Dlyons493 Talk 15:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Equations are the Devil's sentences. (Unsigned vote by User:BrianGCrawfordMA)
Keep The problem is notable. I first saw it (in a family-friendly reformulation) in one of Martin Gardner's puzzle books (published in the '80s, at latest) and it's shown up in many places since. —Blotwell 05:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know nothing abou operations research, and I've heard of this before. On mathworld, it is called the [Glove Problem]. As to notability: right now, the defacto Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics "notability" criterion is set at a level whereby, if a paper or two has been published on the topic, its notable. For something to be in a book means that there have been dozens of papers at least, and so is clearly notable. Although, ahem, it might be more appropriate to reword this into talking about gloves not condoms. Although I admit the reason I remember hearing of it before was the "gross-out" factor. Actually, think I heard about re-using latex gloves in Soviet hospitals, and maybe 3rd-world hospitals. They certainly reused "disposable" needles. linas 01:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, assuming that nobody rewords it, does it kept the way it is or not? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't know what a "makespan" is, I suggest moving article to glove problem. The language doesn't concern me much. Wether te content is accurate.... actually, that I did not investigate. At least the problem was posed in a coherent way. linas 01:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable and recurring topic in operations research/recreational mathemeatics. Kappa 13:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to glove problem, with redirect from condom problem. Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 15:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if it is to be renamed to "glove problem" it will have to be reworded. If no one is interested in doing so then it should be renamed to "condom problem" with a redirect from "glove problem". Paul August ☎ 15:15, 23 February 2006 (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.