Non-monotonic dice: None of the three sources are reliable or (worse) even mention "non-monotonic dice", which is understandable because there are no sources for the concept "non-monotonic dice" [20] .  The concept of non-transitive dice, which is mentioned by the references, is already covered in Intransitive dice , so it's not as if this article discusses an uncovered topic by the wrong name.  Fram ( talk ) 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions .  Fram ( talk ) 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I found the David and Goliath dice interesting and no less remarkable than other sets of dice that are subjects of articles.  Unfortunately I can find no references about them, or non-monotonic dice more generally, except for the page selling them (which is currently linked in the article) and what appears to be a Facebook page of the people who made or discovered them.  If reliable sources publish something about these dice then I would like to see the information return to Wikipedia but at the moment I don't think there are sufficient sources.  Mgp28 ( talk ) 10:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Mgp28 and Fram, thank you for the comments.  The motivation for creating this page is the following: Before creating this page I considered including David vs Goliath dice as a variation under the Intransitive dice page (which I believe would be relatively unproblematic), however David vs Goliath dice are not intransitive by definition despite having many similities.  Do you believe it would be better to include a section under intransitive dice called "Variations to intransitive dice" where David vs Goliath dice are explained? .  Trojan.chess ( talk ) 12:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, because the David vs. Goliath dice are not notable either, the claims about it are not picked up or commented upon by any reliable sources.  At the moment, it doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia.  Fram ( talk ) 12:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your reply Fram.  I agree there are very little publically available sources online concerning David vs Goliath dice, however there are some.  I would like to highlight Mgp28 comment that these are "no less remarkable than other sets of dice that are subjects of articles" and I would add that on the Intransitive Dice page most of the dice sets cited there and the properties atributed to them have no source at all (see: mininmal alterations set, numbered 1 to 24, corrected grime dice, intransitive 4-sided, intransitive 12-sided).  I think this is fine since these are mathematical objects that require less external validation than the average topic covered on wikipedia.  My take is that either David vs Goliath should be included as a variant under Intransitive Dice (if not a full page) or the entire Intransitive Dice page should be cropped down for lack of external sources.  My opinion is for the former rather than the latter.  Trojan.chess ( talk ) 14:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "mathematical objects that require less external validation than the average topic covered on wikipedia."  Er, that goes against the most basic policies.  Perhaps the other page needs trimming, but that's not an argument to include (further) novelties without good sources.  And no, there are no good sources about these dice, never mind anything serious verifying the claims about them.  Fram ( talk ) 14:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Trojan, I do think the dice are interesting.  But when I come to read a Wikipedia article I expect the information to be reliable.  That means that the blurb on a website selling dice is not sufficient.  And while you might be perfectly qualified to tell me that the information is true, the rest of us have no way of knowing that, which is why there are rules against original research.  It is perfectly feasible that these dice could be covered in reliable sources -- the intransitive dice are covered in publications such as The American Mathematical Monthly and Mathematics Magazine .  But until they are, I don't think they have a place here, either on their own page or as part of another one.  And if the descriptions of other dice are also original research, I think they will also need to be removed.  Mgp28 ( talk ) 17:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Does a shop selling them even count as a valid source?  Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 14:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Either delete per nom or redirect to intransitive dice .  Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 14:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would we redirect a term which is not in use elsewhere and seems to be an invention of the page creator?  Fram ( talk ) 14:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Now that you mention it, looking up the term only brings up that article...in which case just delete.  Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 20:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as an apparent neologism for an invented concept.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 20:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – a nice mathematical curiosity, but I can't find any "real" references beyond the Dice Shop — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete a mildly interesting variation of intransitive dice , but not one that is discussed anywhere else under this name.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 21:09, 3 June 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete