Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two envelopes problem/sources

:{{la|Two envelopes problem/sources}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Two envelopes problem/sources}})

Author seems to think an introduction is unnecessary but this is a list to go with the two envelopes problem article. I feel it falls firmly into the link farm area. — RHaworth {{toolbar|separator=dot|talk | contribs }} 16:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Userfy or move to talk page or separate workpage. The content does not belong as a standalone article per WP:LINKFARM. The Two envelopes problem article appears to be adequately sourced, and if the "further reading" section (which I've never liked) is so long that it necessitates a fork article, then maybe there are too many "further reading" recommendations. I recommend one of these options instead of outright deletion, in case the person/people working on the parent article might want to use these sources as references at a later time. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Even userfied articles must conform to Wikipedia standards. People working on the parent article do not need to have it here. It can easily be placed on Wikia, for example, where no-one will seek to delete it. — RHaworth {{toolbar|separator=dot|talk | contribs }} 17:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yeah, just move it to a collapse box on the talk page.—S Marshall T/C 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy merge into Two envelopes problem#Further reading. —Ruud 22:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 17:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, but either merge into Two envelopes problem#Further reading or rename to something like List of articles and books discussing the two-envelope paradox. Notwithstanding WP:LINKFARM, the two-envelope paradox is special in that, in spite of a vigorous debate, nothing resembling consensus as to how to resolve the paradox has emerged in the scientific community. Even the papers that purport to give an overview of the arguments give spotty coverage, and our Wikipedia article is no exception. The list would be more useful if it was annotated, but I realize that requires a tremendous effort. As far as I'm concerned it can be culled somewhat by removing unpublished or self-published sources.  --Lambiam 17:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Move it to a talkpage section and collapse, and then particular items can be moved to Two envelopes problem#Further reading at editorial discretion — frankie (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

: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.