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 content, but I suggest a move as discussed below. W.marsh 17:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making low hands[edit]

Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making low hands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unencyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a repository of probability tables. Very long; content doesn't stand on its own as an article, is too long to be accommodated in another one. Is named as a subpage, which articles should not be. Should be deleted, transwikied or moved out of article space. – Qxz 23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The amount and detail of the information provided here is useful and can't be found elsewhere. Move to Derivations for making low hands in Omaha hold 'em. S0ulfire84 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it can't be found elsewhere, then does that perhaps mean it's a problem, rather than a reason to keep it? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, but if the decision is to move the article, I think a better name would be Probability derivations for making low hands in Omaha hold 'em. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move per S0ulfire84. Mgiganteus1 00:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources, seems to be original research. TJ Spyke 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - however should be shortened and sourced, and moved if that turns out to be consensus. - WeniWidiWiki 05:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as either a sub-page that shouldn't be (a curable problem) or Original Research (a much more incurable one). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not an Omaha player, but it looks useful to me. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is not in itself a valid reason for the inclusion of this article in an encyclopedia. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The parent article seems to have a bunch of these tables too. They must be from somewhere; actually, there may be WP:COPYVIO issues here? -- Kendrick7^talk 20:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hadn't thought of it that way. As I understand the rules, though, it would be a copyvio only if the tables existed somewhere else first, since I don't think anyone can claim copyright on something which turns up here first. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I left a note on the parent article's talk page, and on a user page of someone involved in splitting the article in the first place, who may have made the tables. It's not exactly WP:OR because it's not really research; I wouldn't demand a ref for 2+2=4. But maybe someone from there will show up and explain. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't claim to understand the mechanics of card games, but I think it's still close to OR if not in fact over that line. Essentially, the article's talking about a series of outcomes and the probabilities that these outcomes will occur. That's something which requires a higher level of mathematical work than 2+2=4, so it's either been done by someone somewhere else (in which case it needs to be appropriately sourced before we talk about anything else) or done by the author/s of this article (in which case it's naughty). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • (edit conflict) I do understand the mechanics of card games; I think the calculations fall under the realm of common knowledge among "professional" Omaha players, in much the same way basic math is common knowledge among grade-schoolers. I can tell you what these blackjack charts say from memory, for example. Omaha is simply one of the most complex games, where the amount of esoteric knowledge is high. A lot of the card game articles are fairly ad hoc in respect to citations, but I imagine they attract a fair amount of expert attention. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since I created the article in question I'll abstain from voicing an opinion. But I thought I'd copy here my response to the question "Did you make the tables in the article up for deletion?" from Kendrick7 on my talk page:

  What do you mean by make? Yes, I made the tables. No, it's not my original research. However, I don't know of any reliable source that contains all of the information, probably because it's voluminous. The sourcing is from papers and discussions in probability forums, but those wouldn't be considered reliable sources and most of it has not been "published" in the proper sense. All of the information in the tables is easily verified because after all, it's just math. The "verification" is that the probabilities add up to 1.0. I included a note on the talk page regarding the reasoning behind including the tables, which in part is specifically to provide verification for the tables in the main article. To avoid a conflict of interest, I intend to stay out of the deletion discussion. Hope that helps. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  —Doug Bell ^talk 23:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep hardly Unencyclopedic, a very well done article on the mathematical probabilities in Omaha. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that's what I'm saying. Sure it could be better sourced — and sourcing is something I'm picky about on liberal arts-ish articles — but I think WP:SENSE comes into play here. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've seen some of this information before, but nothing so usefully organized and comprehensive. I don't believe that this is original work, but I don't know anywhere I've seen it laid out so well. Ron Howard 08:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Completely objective and verifiable (use combinatorics and a calculator). This is not original research; from WP:OR: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." In this case the data are the rules of the game. The lack of comprehensive sources raises the value of this article. The question becomes whether these probabilities are encyclopedic, which I think they are. Pomte 06:31, 26 February 2007 (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.