Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lock 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 and move. Geschichte (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lock puzzle

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not include any useful information, does not cite any sources, and is not even a notable topic. It was of many pages nominated for deletion along with Interlocking puzzle in 2005, and they were all kept because they apparently would be improved. However, they were not. Philosophy2 (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Lock puzzles have a long history." Ah, wonderful. I feel very informed. -- asilvering (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article as presented is not very thorough, but they do in fact seem to have a long history with some academic coverage. This article goes into some depth and mentions this book, which is entirely about (a narrow subfield of) the subject. Rusalkii (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to "puzzle lock": Rusalkii's excellent research shows that biggest issue might be that they're known as "puzzle locks" not "lock puzzles". When you reverse the words lots of references show up.[1] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's actually a fascinating topic that's almost certainly notable. I just added the first source. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sources linked above suggest this may be notable, but the article doesn't show this. I think this could be kept but if no improvement is needed, it needs a {{notability}} template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Puzzle lock per Bob drobbs. Seems to be a notable topic, especially with ancient Chinese puzzle locks having multiple scholarly sources (e.g. [2] [3] [4]). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per above. This is a good example of something that people tend to forget about WP:GNG, where what matters is the existence of sources, in the article, or otherwise. OcelotCreeper2 (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep and trout nom only reason given for deletion that is valid is "not even a notable topic", which I suspect isn't the Wikipedia definition of "notable". Nom appears to have made no attempt to fix or follow WP:BEFORE. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has been improved since this discussion began, and can definitely be improved from a stub. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 02:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep short article but notable topic. It could be expanded in the future. Mann Mann (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2021 (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.