Deletion of Probability derivations for making low hands in Omaha hold 'em

Comment: I definitely agree with Geometry guy that this is not OR.  I'm rather surprised several people have stated that as a reason.  But it seems to me that the obvious deletion reason, not a manual or collection of indiscriminate information, is a fairly good one.  I'm personally on the fence about this one, since I think there are some subtle issues here.  It depends on whether you regard ''some'' information on derivations "indiscriminate" or necessary for conveying understanding.  Certainly in many mathematics articles, if I inserted a simple sentence or two giving a little more detail on something that could appear mysterious or confusing, I can't imagine people complaining to me about .  Probably what gets people's hackles up is that there is a big chart.  This may bear some resemblance to things like multiplication tables, where obviously it is inappropriate to have them up to some large number (up to 12 is considered standard).  But it doesn't seem to me the level of detail here is excessive, although I flip-flop on that.  Frankly, I thought this would be more controversial than it has
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per ,  . This is an obvious case. Why are we even having this discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:RS||WP:NOR)

Comment: per nom,  a game guide, no |reliable sources cited, possibly 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:RS||WP:OR)

Comment: Well, wikipedia is not a student resource, it is an encyclopedia.  speaks directly to this issue(indiscriminate collection...) and other issues, but I rather like the article and would like to see it stick around contrary to the policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)