Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political 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 was merge to Game theory#Political science. But there is probably consensus to allow a spinoff article again as soon as there is enough content. Sandstein 08:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Political game theory[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Political game theory" not a field, content of page already subsumed in Game theory, other cuban crisis related pages. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems a real interdisciplinary field of study. There are books on it, such as Political Game Theory: An Introduction, Game Theory for Political Scientists, and Game Theory and Political Theory: An Introduction. A GScholar search yields about 340 hits. The topic seems notable. --Mark viking (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At time of nomination, was aware of book "Political Game Theory". To the best of my knowledge, books mentioned above and other search pointers are about application of 'Game Theory' to political science/international relations, and not to a subfield/discipline by itself. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misnaming an article is grounds for moving it, not for deleting it. The test for a standalone article is whether the topic is covered in reliable sources, not whether or not the topic is a formal field of study. SpinningSpark 19:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have nominated for deletion if the article had been titled Game Theory and Politics? That's the title of yet another book by the way, to save you having to follow the link. SpinningSpark 19:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and by the way, the preface to that book explicitly states that it is an "interdisciplinary field". SpinningSpark 19:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Game theory and politics" or "Game theory and political science", definitely no, a page that can be expanded and can serve as a navigation point on the topic/an expansion of Game Theory#Political science. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my decline of the speedy delete, game theory does no even mention the Cuban missile crisis (which is mostly what is in this article at the moment) so, on the basis of WP:PRESERVE, we should definitely not delete and should probably keep. The proposer says that there are other articles on the Cuban missile crisis, but do any of them have anything relating to game theory? Just on that one example alone, the article could be vastly expanded. I already added one reference, Game theory and the Cuban missile crisis, when I declined the speedy. I note that there is also an entire book on the subject: Hesse Game Theory and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Many others cover this case in detail: Dodge Schelling's Game Theory: How to Make Decisions has a 37-page chapter "Case Study:Cuban Missile Crisis".

Please see Chicken (game), and Brinkmanship for instances where the Cuban missile crises is reasoned about in game-theoretic terms. Schelling is a notable scholar on this topic. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question, as the proposer seem to believe, of whether or not this article is a subset of Game theory, but rather, whether there is enough material available for a stand-alone article. Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Volume 2 has a very lengthy chapter on "Game theory: Model of Peace and War" covering numerous crises and conflicts. It does not take much digging to find much more. SpinningSpark 19:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - One sentence about the cuban missile crisis is not the basis for an article. Chuck the ref in the Game Theory article and be done with it. Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Merge, and redirect if the precise title is found to be in use, to Game Theory#Political science. Maybe Game_theory#Political_science should talk about the Cuban crisis example, maybe not (my opinion: why not, it was a major instance of it after all); maybe we should have a separate article Game theory analysis of the Cuban missile crisis, maybe not (my opinion: no, but I could be convinced by good sourcing). But at any rate the current article is not the place to deal only with Cuba 1962, and its current content is not a mine of valuable information that editors would take ages to gather again. Just for the record, here it is in its entirety:

"Game Theory was first applied in 1962 to the Cuban missile crisis during the presidency of John F. Kennedy in the Game Theory causes. The main thing is not to harm any of the parties on both sides Havana crisis. [references] Steven J. Brams, Game theory and the Cuban missile crisis, Plus Magazine (etc.)"

The real question is whether "Political game theory" or "Game theory and politics" or whatever similar name for the general topic (not just Cuba 1962) should be a standalone article. The topic is doubtlessly notable enough, but why not start at Game Theory#Political science and split it later if the need occurs? Tigraan (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is encyclopaedic, then the correct way forward is neither delete nor redirect. Deleting on the basis that it "is not a mine of valuable information that editors would take ages to gather again" is not an acceptable rationale. Encyclopaedic information should never be deleted per WP:PRESERVE. On top of that, if it is true, as claimed, that the Cuban missile crisis was the inspiration for developing political game theory (it needs citing of course) then that is encyclopaedic information of the highest importance and definitely belongs on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 11:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Article too short, little information" is certainly not a reason to delete, I agree with you on that. I also agree that Cuba 1962 being an instance of game theory is notable ("encyclopaedic") information. But at any rate WP:PRESERVE is never an argument to keep articles, it is an argument to retain information, so the question is whether a standalone article is warranted when there is a parent article.

I changed my !vote to merge since this is technically better; my point about the shortness of the article was that there is one whole sentence to merge, so not much too start with. But that is better than nothing, sure. Tigraan (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned in my comment above, there exist in depth reliable references that discuss the topic of political game theory, so the topic looks notable. The article is poor, the barest stub, but sources are there to develop the article; it has WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. Reading some of the book I referenced, it is clear to me that political game theory is more that just a textbook application of game theory to political science; there are particular issues with application that have in part caused this to develop into an interdisciplinary field. In the same way the Physical chemistry is more the Chemistry#physics this topic, albeit much newer and less developed, is more than Game_theory#Political_science. In the interest of consensus, I would not be opposed to a merge, but the source materials for a standalone article are there. --Mark viking (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge, but i agree that the source materials are probably there for a standalone. At such time when the section in game theory becomes well fleshed out, it can be split quite easily. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see two claims in your comment: (1) there is enough sourcing in terms of notability for a standalone-article, and (2) PGT is more than a mere subfield of game theory. While I agree with (1), it is not in itself an argument against dealing with the topic on the parent page: per WP:N's introduction, even if a topic is presumed notable "this is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." I would support editing the parent page until it becomes too big and needs a split on that base. As for 2, well, that is a claim needing a source for that specific point (not just general sources on PGT). Even if true, that is probably not an easy task, but maybe there are review papers of the PGT field that give some difference between PGT and GT? Tigraan (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2016 (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.