Answering your questions:
1. Yes, this conference proceedings paper is sufficiently reliable to be
included into a wikipedia article. (Notability of the paper does not
matter.) The full reference is
2. No, discussion threads are not reliable sources and can not be
2015-12-28 19:50 GMT+03:00 Shlomi Fish <shlomif(a)shlomifish.org>rg>:
in case you don't know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell
single-player card game, that became popular after being included in
some versions of Microsoft Windows. Now, the English Wikipedia entry about
used to contain during at least two times in the past, some relatively
sections about several automated solvers that have been written for it.
However, they were removed due to being considered "non-notable" or
Right now there's only this section -
fact that FreeCell was proved to be NP-complete.
I talked about it with a friend, and he told me I should try to get a
"reliable source" news outlet/newspaper to write about such solvers
I should add my own over at http://fc-solve.shlomifish.org/
, though the
sections on the FreeCell Wikipedia entry did not exclusively cover it.).
Recently I stumbled upon this paper written by three computer scientists,
at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev:
* There's some analysis of this paper in this thread in the
The solver mentioned in the paper can solve 98% of the first 32,000
FreeCell deals. However, several hobbyist solvers (= solvers that were
outside the Academia and may incorporate techniques that are less
there, and that were not submitted for Academic peer review) that were
by the time the article published, have been able to solve all deals in the
first MS 32,000 deals except one (#11,982), which is widely believed to be
impossible, and which they fully traverse without a solution.
Finally, I should note that I've written a Perl 5/CPAN distribution to
that the FreeCell solutions generated by my solver (and with some potential
future work - other solvers) are correct, and I can run it on the output of
my solver on the MS 32,000 deals on my Core i3 machine in between 3 and 4
Now my questions are:
1. Can this paper be considered a reliable, notable, and/or Encyclopaedic
that can hopefully deter and prevent future Deletionism?
2. Can I cite the fc-solve-discuss’s thread mentioning the fact that there
hobbyist solvers in question that perform better in this respect - just for
"Encyclopaedic" completeness sake, because the scientific paper in question
does not mention them at all.
Sorry this E-mail was quite long, but I wanted to present all the facts.
can tell, I've become quite frustrated at Wikipedia deletionism and the
one has to overcome in order to cope with them.
[Verification] - one note is that all these programs were not
as correct by a proof verifier such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq
there is a small possibility that they have insurmountable bugs. Note that
did write some automated tests for them.
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
What Makes Software Apps High Quality - http://shlom.in/sw-quality
The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience, and
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org