Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probability-based strategy

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 delete. --Ixfd64 05:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probability-based strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

vanispamcruftvertisement Pete.Hurd 05:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating both Catalin Barboianu and probability-based strategy for deletion.

Catalin Barboianu is an apparent vanity autobiography [1] written by User:Infarom. Infarom Publishing House is Catalin Barboianu's employer, and publisher of three of Barboianu's books on Poker strategy (and apparently no books other than these three). The article asserts that Barboianu is a notable mathematician, whose major work is probability-based strategy. The ISI WoS lists no peer reviewed publications for "Barboianu C*". The probability-based strategy article "phrase "probability-based strategy" appears only once in the ISI database, and refers to another concept. I can find no evidence that this is a notable mathematical concept. The concepts described in the article appear to refer to the optimization technique known as stochastic programming. In over ten years' experience with stochastic programming, I've never heard of the term "probability-based strategy" used in conjunction with these ideas. The probability-based strategy article claims to refer to game theory concepts, yet none of the material presented has any game theory relevance. In summary, I can find no support for the claims of scientific notability, or evidence that this is anything more than vanity article by an author of books on how to play Texas hold-em. Note: another article by the same author Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philosophy_of_probability. Pete.Hurd 05:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Catalin Barboianu, but KeepDelete probability-based strategy. Non-notability of the author is not transferred to what he writes about. -Amarkov ^babble 05:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes you think that probability based strategy is notable? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a valid branch of game theory, but I realize it's already covered in Mathematics of gambling. So delete both. -Amarkov ^babble 15:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both neither are notable. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Barboianu, unless independent sources are found establishing notability. --Trovatore 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect probability-based strategy to mixed strategy. (Note that it's not important that the current article isn't about mixed strategies; that doesn't stop it from being a reasonable redirect from the title). --Trovatore 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• procedural comment I'm not sure it's really correct to combine these two AfD's; it's sometimes done for a large group of closely related articles added at the same time, but it does make things more confusing. --Trovatore 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  In retrospect, you are totally correct, I should have made two AfDs. Pete.Hurd 06:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both, no redirect. Not even the name is notable. —David Eppstein 06:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, no redirect (although the author is weak). The mathematical concept would not be mixed strategy, but elsewhere in game theory; however, the title is a WP:neologism, as far as I can tell. The author may be marginally notable; not as a mathematician, but as a gaming (gambling) author. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, no redirect' - vanispamcruftvertisement. Xdenizen 07:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Pete. --Zvika 08:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, one is self-created about the author (regardless of notability), the other is term invented by the author not used elsewhere, so article is at minimum original research. 2005 08:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both WP:OR, WP:COI, no redirect (the "probability-based strategy" seems to describe the expected value criterion in decision theory rather than a mixed strategy in game theory and as such is not a commonly accepted term). On the author, if "his most important contribution was on decision theory, placing the concept of probability-based strategy onto a firm mathematical foundation" he should be added to the List of reinventors of the wheel. ~ trialsanderrors 09:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Barboianu (the article, not the person) per WP:BIO. Delete Probability-based strategy per WP:OR or redirect to Expected utility hypothesis.  --Lambiam^Talk 09:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That redirect target appears to be based on the current content of the article. I'm not going to be brokenhearted if the title is not redirected, but please, let's remember that the current content is 100% irrelevant when considering a redirect. The only question is, is it useful, non-confusing, and non-tendentious to have this name redirect to the other name? (Also, there is no requirement that a redirect be notable) --Trovatore 16:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this argument is persuasive, endorse redirect of Probability-based strategy to mixed strategy. Pete.Hurd 16:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wouldn't that encourage him to add his cruft to the target of the redirect? I don't think that's an outcome we'd want. —David Eppstein 16:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand this concern, but 1) the two topics are very different, 2) I watch mixed strategy and 3) I am confident that standard proceedures will work should what you suggest comes to pass. Pete.Hurd 17:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this "notability" a mandatory criterion in wikipedia policy? And, if yes, who establishes the catalogues, papers or directories that give this attribute to a person? It is hilarious that people like Daniel Negreanu - famous gambler (and probably other hundreds of "notabilities") may keep a biographic article on wikipedia, but a mathematician and author working on gambling math is not allowed. He has to reach the notability of a gambler first. Oh, guys... infarom 09:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment seems to imply that there is a difference in worth between a gambler and a mathematician. But there are notable gamblers and non-notable gamblers, just like there are notable gamblers and notable mathematicians. Rray 14:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established in debates like these. We are fallible people, who must try to determine a person's impact by looking at publicly available databases. If you feel like there is evidence for Barboianu's (your?) notability, please point it out. It appears to me that Negreanu has had a larger influence on professional gamblers than Barboianu has. And, I see little evidence that Barboianu has influenced mathematicians in any way. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We have kept both Blaise Pascal and Gerolamo Cardano. Notable work by gambling mathematicians or on the mathematics of gambling has no problem. Septentrionalis 04:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as advertising and/or vanity. JIP | Talk 11:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - advertising and vanity, per above. Rray 14:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - advertising and vanity, no proof of authority. Torimadi 15:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, vanispamcruftisment, no way to make this valid. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 15:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thadmoore (talk • contribs)

  Editor's firstsecond edit was today, see also Thad Moore (if it hasn't been speedied yet, self professed notable 13 year old mathematician) Pete.Hurd 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Very long-winded, essayish, original-research and unencyclopedia-style articles about some very obvious bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:22, 7 November 2006 (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.