Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statistical game theory

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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nonsense, if it were not nonsense it would be OR, but it's nonsense Pete.Hurd 03:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nonsense --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not certain it's nonsense -- but it certainly is poorly written WP:OR. Delete. Alba 03:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Move to user space. WP:OR. I found some references, but generally old, and very few. Combination of obvious terms did not return anything on Web-of-Science, or google scholar. --KimvdLinde 03:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that the sole author of this page moves it for the time being to his onw userspace, and developes it there first. After that, he can ask for comments by other editors at the mathematics project page to avoid WP:OR before reinserting it at the main space. KimvdLinde 17:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There, i added references... don't say it's OR or nonsense before it gets more complete. Dexter Inside 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding references at the end is not sufficient in this case, I would consider to add references in the text as to indicate where it has been described as such. Combining pieces can also be original research. KimvdLinde 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided See below. "Statistical game theory" is a real branch of mathematical statistics. There are academic papers on it here [1] and here [2]. I haven't evaluated the article for quality, but the topic is valid. It would be nice if someone with expertise could weigh in, but if they don't, I'll try to look it over later. Slowmover 17:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that there is no such thing called statistical game theory, but that this article contains nothing that pertains to how the term as it is used outside of this page. None of the references supplied pertain to the topic either. Pete.Hurd 17:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just wanted to add some material for other voters, but now I'm voting myself. The references given are general texts and so don't really support the article, which fails to discuss material aspects of statistical game theory as described elsewhere, so it should be deleted. If the true subject is something else, it can be recreated. Slowmover 18:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• okay in this case maybe the title of this article is not so appropriate. I couldn't find much stuff on the net regarding this particular study, and also there are no similar articles to this on Wikipedia. Suggestions for a new title would be nice. The references are pertinent to the actual content of this article, not to its title. Gonna learn more about namespaces used on Wikipedia. 10x for possible quality evaluations. Dexter Inside 18:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, where is it all about (in layman terms)? KimvdLinde 18:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it's like this:

1) a more general theory that resembles the way statistics is used in physical chemistry, to be used in computer science

2) it is being developed and supported by the Polytechnic University of Bucharest, as well as some private companies interested in its applications in parallel processing and online gaming

3) here it is refered to with the term "statistical game theory" so if you are right it may be an ambiguation

4) it's supposed to treat general problems that arise from game theory and chaos theory as a cybernetic system

5) it's supposed to solve these problems using statistical methods Dexter Inside 19:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has problems (original research, convoluted, etc.) but it's a real topic, verifiable and notable per Slowmover. It could use a lot of cleanup but that's cause for tagging it not deleting it. Ifnord 20:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Delete. I'm changing my vote because Pete.Hurd has pointed out to me the article is completely flawed as is. While my heart tells me the article could exist, my gut tells me no one will ever fix it. Better to let it go then. Ifnord 23:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. OR, at least in its current form. -- Avenue 01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless direct citations are provided, tt appears to me original research. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:45] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

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.